(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The Montreal law reports [microform]"







■.)-»/; n- 




i-l 



Vf. 



IMAGE € VALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 



1.1. .l.-^fca 

■■•25 IH 1.4 lid 





TTT 





■Jf'-, < 







W^ 



^.Sdenoes 
Cargoration 



l.-'-tV- 




O"--^ \'^ 'i 






'4^« 




23 WnST MAM ST|HKT 

«nSTn,N.Y. I45M 

(716)t72-4S03 



f^- * 






-* 


',''*! 




■ -.■'. * 
■ ♦ . 

, - ' , ' - •, ■ ■ " ■ 

'".■.. ..'-■■ .- -, '. ■ v .\ 

■ -, ■■ •■ ^ : ,■.■■■-.::..:, ■.:■:%-■ 

CIHM/ICMH 


/. ■ ■ .., . , ■■ .- ■ .■ _ r ■ 

CIHM/I^MH 
Collectijbn de 


■ ■ 'y 

1 >»■ ■ ^ ■ . 

/ ■,■■.., 

,i " ■' 


Microfiche 




Series?" 


microfiphes. ' 


■,, 


■ ■ ■ -■ ■ V < ■ 

■■■■-.. '• ■ • -, ■ ■ . ; ■■ • 




■' ■■ •; '■■, 




,:,\- 



*^- 







Canadiiin Institute for Historical Microraprarfuctions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquaa 




\ 



'A^; 



T 







TiM Imtitut* hai smmptMl to obtain th* but orifiNi 
i . copy avail«bl«.for filmbit. Faaturw of this eopy ««hich 
may ba MbHogr a phteally uniqua. twhieb may altar any 
of tha Magat in tha raprodiietion, or which may 
liflnifieantly dianga tha otual mathod of filming, ara 
chackad balow. . . 



Tadihical and Bibliographic Notw / Nptat tachniqwat at bihlioir a phimiat 

L'Institiit a micrdf iim« la maW^r aic^nplaira 
lui a M poMiMa di N procurer. LatdAtailt 
axamplaira qui Mnt paut-ltra uniquat di^ poifit 
bibliographi4<M, qui pauvant modmar una 
raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una 
dam la mMioda normala da f ibnaga 



□ Coiourad covan/ ^ 

Coutrartura da coulaur 

□ Corart damaged/ 
Couvartura andommagia 

□ Covars rattorad and/or laminatMl/ 
Couvartura rMaurte at/ou pailiculfa 

□ Co«or titia mlMingj; 
La titra da eouvari^ra manqua 



II rn Coiourad ink 0.a. othar than Mua or Uaek)/ 
I I Encra da ooulaur 0.a. autra qua Maua ou noira) 

□ Coiourad platet and/or ilhmrattem/ ^ ' 
PlanchM aVou illuitratiom an eoulaur 



D 



Hoimd with othar matMrial/ 
RaMavacd'autrati 



ihadowior dbtortion 



dal'ombraoudala 
intMaura 



0Ti#it binding may 
aiongintBrior margin/ 
La ralhira aarria paut c 
distortion la kMtg da la 



□ Blank laa»w addad during ratloraUun may 
within thataxL Whanam powiMa, thaw ha^e 
baan omittad from fibning/ .< 
II M pant qua cartabMs pagai Manchat eioutiaB 
tor« d'una rartauiation ippai aiaf a n t dant la taxta, 
maisjoriqua eala MMt poniM/aw pagM.n'ont 
pai iti filmtes. 



.-•v 



davua 



ci-danous. 

□ CohNirad pagat/ 
Piagas da eoitfaur 



§ 




totr 



D 

□ Fl^Bt rastorad and/or laminatad/ ^ 
PfegH rait au r<a a' at/ou paNicuMas '^ 

0tagatdiwolottr«d.ttainadorfbjiad/ ' 
ragai rtiroloriai, 

□ ^Mat dataohad/ 



• j r-i Showihrough/ 
b^ Tramparanea .. 

□ Quality o(f print variat/ 
Quallti hi«gria da HmprMion 

□ Continuous pagination/ 
P agi na tion eontinua 



bidudas indaxtes)/ 
Comprand un (das) indax 

Titn on haadar tahan from:/ 
\jk titra da i'an-tfla proriant: 



datitradalaliwaison 



□ Caption of issiia/ 
Tiln da dipart da la livraison 

I IMaftiMad/ 

LJ QMriqua (pModiquas) da la liwaison 







AddMoiial comments:/ 



IncKidas soma taxt in Franch. 



pou 
of til 
filml 



Origi 
bpgii 
thpl 
•ion. 
oth«i 

fifM 
•Ion, 
or Mil 



Thol 
•hall 
UNU 
whici 

Mapi 
4i#f« 
•ntin 

bogii^ 
fight 
roqui 
moth 



This itam i| fitaiad at tha raduetioii ratio chadcad balour/ .11 
Ca document ast fikni au taux da rMuction faMHqui dHlassow. 
^OX 14X J8X 



H 



22X 



26X 



36X 



T 



12X 



IfX 



2DX 



24X 



29X 






32X 



"k. 



M-- 



1*^ 



•■■). 



/ 

/ •■, 



3 



32X 



Tb« copy MnMd h«r« has h—t% raproducad thanks 
to tha ganaroahy of : V 

■' ' , ' < 

Un Llltrary, 
Uklvwslty of WMtom Ontarfo. 

THaJmafaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quaUty 
pouibia eonsidaring tha condition and lagibiiity 
of tha original copy and in liaaping with tlia 
filming contraet spacificationa. 

Original eopiaa in ptintad papar eovafa ata Wmad 
baginning with tha front covar and anding on 
tha laat paga with a Drintad or ilhiatiratad impraa- 
aion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. All ; 
othar original eopiaa ara filmad baginning on tha 
first paga with a printad or iiluatratad impraa- 
slon, and anding oh tha laat paga with a printad 
or iiluatratad imprassion. 



Tha laat racordadjframa on aach microflcho 
shall contain tha symbol •«» (moaning "CON* 
TINUCO"). or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), 
whichavar appliaa. 

Maps, platas. charts, ate. may ba filmad at 
diffarant radiiction ratioa. Thoso too larga to ba 
antiraly, includad in ana axposura mn filmad 
baginning in tha uppar laft hand eornar, iaft to 
fight and top to bottom, .aa many framaa as 
raquirad. Tha following diagrama iiluatrata tha 
mathod: 



.^ ■: 


^ 2 , 

1 


/,3 

/ 



Y- 



L'axampiaira flimA'fMt raproduit grica i la 
g4nArosit* da: 



Library; , 
J Unl varsity of Hntarn Ontario. 

Laa Imagas suivantas ont At* raproduitas avac la 
plus grand soin. eompta tanu da laxondition at 
da la nattat« da I'axamplaira film*, at %f\ 
conformit4 avac las conditions du oontrat da 
fllmaga. 

Laa asamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura on 
papiar aat IhtprimAa sont filmds an commandant 
par la pramiar plat at vn tarminant soit par la 
darni#ra paga qui comporta unaamprainta 
d'Imprassion ou d'illustration. soit par la sacond 
plat, salon la caa; Tous laa aiitras axamplatras 
originaux sont filmM an commandant par la 
pramiAra paga qui comporto una amprainta \ 
dlmprassion ou d'illustration at an tsrminant par 
la darniAra pafia qui comporta una taJia 
amprainta.' -j. .■ ■ v 

'' J " *■■ ' .. .'. 

Un da* symbolaa suivants apparaftri sur la 
darnlAra imaga da chaqua micrbficha. salon la-*— 
caa: la symbols ^»> signlfia "A SUIVRE'. la 
symbohi ▼ signifia "FIN". / 

Laa Cartaa. ptonthas. tablaaux. ate. pauvint *tra 
f ilm*a A daa taux da riduction dif f Arants. 
Loraqua la ddcumant ast tro|> grand pour kvi% 
raproduit 1% un saul ciich*. il aat film* * partir 
da I'angla supAriaur gaucha. da gaucha * droi^. 
at da haut an baa. w% pranant la nombra 
d'in^agas ndcaaaaira. Las dlagrami^as suivahts 
lilus^rant la m*thoda, 



.-/ 




5 



t 



'"^*^. 




■■A' 






■. vv 



mm 






■.>x'1 ' 



Montreal Iaw Reports: 



•\ 






COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



JAME^ KIRBY, Editor. 




- 


^Br> 


■ -■■■■•-'. 


* 


■ ■ * .t- 1 




"'■ 


\ 



CASES DETiRMlNED IN THE COURT OF 
QUEElIp BENCH/ MONTREAL, 



)884->188B. 



OoHTUBinoaa amd Rbkwtbu 




I dUltmguMad by mittaU.) ) J. J. Bbauciahp. 

E. LirLRUib 



( B. 
( E. 



8. BBmciii;. 'Q.f . 
Jamu KuBt, 



VOIi. I. 



« PRINTED AfHD PUBLISHED BY THE GAZETTE PRINTING Oa 

1886. 



M 




p.' 



'um 



Ir; 



r. 



-# 







*v... 



•t 



: / 



«(.•>.. 



■■* , 



. * 



«'■., 



■^,' 



THE 



The Ho] 
II 



* 


; '■' :'' ■' 


NOV B J 1964 

* - .- ■ ■ 


\ 

\ 
\ 
\ 

\ 




V 




' 


" s 


\ 


• ■■"■*-. 


M 
, « 




.. /■■ ,. / 


1 ' 


\ 


fe(sfe»yyi 


ft 



\ 



;m, •■-.^.•,.-rt- 



JrUDGES 



or 



THE CQURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, 

1885. 






■'-'f. 



\ 



The Hon. Sir ANTOINE AIM£ DORION. Kt., Chief Justice, 

" - SAMUEL CO'RNWALLIS NfONK, 
'^ THOMAS KENNEDY RAMSAY, 

".ULRIC JOSEPH TESSIER,, 
" ALEXANDER CROSS, \ 

LOUIS FR^NgoiS GEORGES BABY, J[ 



\ 



Puisne 
Judges. 



■ , If- 

Attorney General: 
The Hon. a.. a, TAILLON, Q.C. 

Solicititr General.' 
ThE Ho3(. E. J. FLYNN, Q.C. 

Clerk of Appeals : 
' L. W. MARC ha; ND^ 



■f •• 



/ 



N « 



■>'," 



,'/ 



-I'^TSsMv*-^- 



*jM|k|t 



(^ 






1' ^ 



I ' 1 



'r- 






\ 



.> 



/ 



Ti^ 



1 



Arless& Tht 
facturing 

Hank of toi 

' 'quilJ:&.. 

Ranque dc S 

Corporat 

de St. 

maska iN 
Uelitiont Ma 

Arless & 
Kethune et al 
Biron & Trah 
Black et ul. & 
Buntin, McD( 
Bury & Samu 

Campbell, T 

Sugar R< 

Canadian Ba 

Larabe e 

Choquet, Les 

liers etc. 

Ste. Ann( 

le Monti 

Wyl 

Mont 

Pillc 

&VV 

Compagnie d 

Richelieu 

Jean. — 

Compagnie di 

de Mon 

Occident! 

du Cgmti 

[Compagnie du 

de la 

Leclerc. 

'ompagnie di 

Meegan . 

— , Roy 

Al 



5 ■• 



,M-* V 



'X ' 



'^'^ 



TABLE OF CASES REPORTED 

IN voi. I. 



Arless & The Belmont Manu- 
facturingCo ,... 340 



Hank of Toronto, lambe'es 
''quaJ:& 

Ranque dc St. Hyacinthe, La 
Corporation dii Sdminaire 
de St. Hyacinthe d'Ya- 
maska iV 

Belinont Manufacturing Co., 
Arless & 

Hethune et al., Tansey & 

Biron & Trahan 

Black etal.& Walker 

Buntin, McDonell et al. & 

Bury & Samuels 

Campbell, The St. Lawrence 
Sugar Refining do. &...... 

Canadian Bank of Commerce, 
Lambe esqual& 

Choquet, Les Cur6 et Marguil- 
liers etc. de la Paroisse de 
Ste. Anne de Varennes & 
le Montreal, Hogan &. .. 

Wylie et vir & 

of Montreal, Hubert Si..j 

— , Pillow etal. & 

-- & Walker........... 

Compagnie de Navigation du 
Richelieu & OotarioA St. 
Jean 

Compagniie du Chemin dc *er 
de Montreal, Ottaw/ & 
C)cciden(al,La^Corpora^ioh 

1 du C^mtd d'Ottawa 

jCompagnie du Chemin de F^ago 
de la Ppintie-Clairt & 

Leclerc... 

ompagnie du Grand TrOnc & 

Meegan 

— , Roy & 

Al 



■> I 



12» 



3S)fi 



23 



252 



46 



296 

3ti4 
353 



Corporation de la Paroisse de 

Ste. Anne du Bout del'Isle < 

&• Reburn : 200 

Corporation duComtd d'Ottawa . 
\: l.a Compagnie du Che- 
min de Fer dc Montreal, 

OtUwa iV Occidental 4(fv 

orporation du S^minaire de 
St. Hyacinthe d'Yamaska 
& La Ban(|ue de St. Hya- 
cinthe !." 3% 

Corporation du Village du 
Bassin de Chnmbly & 
Scheffer 42 

Craig, Lighthall & 275 

Coursol et al. & Les Syndics de 
la Paroisse de Ste. Cunt- 
gonde , 304 

Craig, Exchaiige Bank of Can- 
ada V 30 

Curd et Marguilliers etc. de la 
Paroisse de Ste. Anne de 
Varennes & Choquet...... 333 

Cuthbert et al., S^rpe et al. & 479 

Dansereau es qual.& JiCtourneux 357 

Davison, Lord et al. &....®. 445 

Dickson et al. Hi Gait 373 

Dominion Abattoir and Stock- 
yards Co. & Hedge et vir. 376 
Dorion & Dorion 65, 483 

Kthier, Gaudin &. 37 

Evans, Fisher & 415 

Exchange Bank of Ca,nada v. 

Craig. 30 

, H^inalk.... 302 

Export Lumber Co. & Lambe 

es qual i... 123 

Pabrique de la Paroisse*^ de 
Varennes & Choquet 333 



/ ,i 



\'. 



^ 



vi 



TABLE OF CA8E8 RfiPdRTED. 



•<?, 
»i'. 



,U' 



Kuirnuin, Tye &....( 504 

Fisher tV Evans 41ft 

Gait, Dickson et ai. & , 378 

Gaudin iV Ethier 37 

Hftmilton Powder Co. Ci: Lambe 

^ cs(|ual 460 

Hatton, Sen^qii & 112 

— ■ — , Montreal, I'ortlnnd \ 

Huston R'y Co.*:. 72, Ml 
Hedge el vir, Dominion Abat- 
toir and Stockyards Co. \' 370 

, M(Millan\- 37« 

Henderson etal., McShane &.. 204 
Hogan & La Cite de Montreal. flO 
Hubert & The City of Montreal 237 



Jon(:setal. & Powell 

l.a)ciiiiesse.\ Lutraverse 

Lajnbe e» qual. \- Bank of 

Toronto 

— — A: Canadian Bank of 

Commerce 

The Export Lumber 

Co. Si.... 

& The Merch^rtts 
"Kinlc^or Canada r. ... 




4!»!l 

Til 

12:i 

123 

123 



The Hamilton Powder 

Co. &.. 

The Molsons Bank 
I'Jie North British A: 
Mercantile Fire and 
Life Insurance Co & . 

. it The Ontario Bank. 

, The Ogdensburg Tow- 

jng Co. & 

— — , \The Williams Manu- 
facturing Co. & 

Langlois, Ross & 

l^traversc,\ Raymond dit La- 

jeunexle & 

Leclerc^ La Compagnie du 
Chemin de Peage de la 

Pointe Claire &. . 

Letour neiix, Danserea'u & 

Ligluhan& Craig.... '. 

Lord et iil. & Davison 



123 

460 
123 



122 
123 

123 

123 
2S0 

321 



Macmaster et al. & Moffatt. 
McPonell et al. & Buntin. . 



296 
367 
276 
446 

387 
1 



387 
123 



7R 



McMillan \- Hedge et vir^ 376 

McShane & Henderson et al... 264 
Meegan, la Compagnie du 

Grand Tronc 5c 364 

Mercfhaiits Bank of Canada, 

Lambe es qual. Sc 123 

Metras &. Trudeau et al. 347 

Mills et al., Thibaudeauetal.& 326 
Mofiatt, Macmaster et al. &.... 
Molsons Bank.ljimhe es (|ual.& 

, The St. l^wrence and 

Chicago Forwarrding 

Co. & 

Molson, Starnes es qual. & 42ft 

Mondelct rt al. iV Roy J» 

Montreal, Portland & Boston 

Railway Co. & Hatton, 72, 3ftr 
Moreau et ux., Wright & 4ft6 

Noruiandin, ( )uiniet es (|Ual. vV 107 
North British &. Mercantile Fire 
iV: life Insurance Co. & 
T.Ambe es qual 122 

(Jgdensburg Towing Co. & 

Lambe esqual "12^ 

Ontario Bank, Lambe es qual &. 123 
Ouimet es qtial. & Normjuidin. 107 



Pillow et al. & The City of 

Montreal 401 

Powell, Jones etal. & 4ft!» 

Provost, Htgina v 473, 477 

Raymond dit Lajeunesse & 

Lalraverse .. 

Rebum, La Corporation de la . 
Paroisse de Ste Anne du " 

-BoutdelTle'^ 200 1 

Reed & The Sparham Fireproof 

Rooting Co .....* 2«| 

Hegina V. Provost 473, 477 

V. Rostf... 227| 

& The Exchange 

Bank of Canada 3021 

Ross & Langlois r280| 

Ross, Hegina v........ 227f 

Roy &La Compagnie du Grand 

Tronc 3ft3| 

Roy, Mondelet et al. & 4 



.Saniuels, Bury &. 



>•••••«••••••«••# 



' • 1 



■^fi ■)'.' 



TABLE OF CASES REPORTEa 



heffer, I a Corporation dii 
Village du Hassin de Cham- 

bly & 

enseal & Hatton 

harpe et al. & CuthMrt et al. 
ipling &' The Sparham Fire- 
proof Roofing Co 

|)arham Fireproof Roofinv 

Co, Reed \- 

— *-, Sipling «: ,.,., 

tarnet es (|ual. it Molson.x.. 

t. .lenii, la Coinpagtiie'^ de 

Navigation dii Richelieu et 

Ontario & ..;.... 

lawrence Ik Chicago For- 
warding Co. iV The Mol 

"sons Bank........ 

Sj.Uwrcm e Sugar Rehning Cjo. 
vSi Campbell .... .•.. 

'4 - 



SI 



112 
479 

22 

42S 
252 



75 
2!M) 



Syndics dc la Ptroiiie de Ste. 
(^in^gonde, Courtoi & . . . . 

Tanaey Ac Bethune etal 

i Thibaudeaii et al.iV Mills etal. 

Trahan, Biron & -. 

Trudeau et al., Metruft 

Tye & Fairman 

' Walker, Black et al Jt 

. City of Montreal*:... 

Whitf, Whitehead etal. & 

Whitehtiidct al. *S: White' 

Williams Manufacturing Co. \' 

lambees qual 

Wright &. Moreau et ux..t.., 
Wylie et vir iV La Citd dc Mon- 
treal .. 



rii 



304 

28 
326 
247 
847 
504 

JU 

4HU 

482 
482 



123 
45({ ^ 

3«7^ 



-.-4- 



The Mode of Citation of i\ Volume, in the Two Series of the Montrbal 
.AW KapoRTB, commencing JanWry 1, 1885, ia as (bltewas- 

V In Uie Queen'a Bench Seriea, 
T — M. IL. R^ 1 Q, B. - — _,-_^ ._^ 



In the Suf^rior Court Seriea, 
M. llB., lac. 



Cic! 












f^: 



^, 



"M 






U 



• ■• 


-■-: 


..._ 




-V- "- .; 


- . ,--—.- 


^ 








::■,■;■■'■ :.u:.i^"-. 


' 


■\ 


\ 








•J 








'- 




- 






























V 


-r~ 




• 




« 




.cMmtm^-^.it 


















-i^i 
















.Vte 


v.Mi 


^jK^ 



Wp^W^,^" W"^ <m,t v ^ '"* fSt^ ' ^4'™^ 



TABLE iW CASESXMTED*. 



A«li»)ury R. C«r Alrrm (,'c». >. Kicliw U R., 7 Ih L. ««ft 184 

Att> .-Oiiiwrtl r. lUy HUln Mining t •). . . OK M«m. Ji4» • • •• N3 

Att> .-««u«riil A BIftck V. . . Mtukii'a K«|k 824 3(>4. :il«f 

Atlv..(J#in«rnl r. Tlw (juMn liM»tir»n«-«< 'o. :i II, (»f K A P. ('. U>0O, 1 14«. 

Now»., U<»; I Cartwrinht, 127. I4(i-172, 177, im», 4«7 

AUv.< Minoriil < . RuihI " . H I^. N«w», «» 14ft, !»•-' 

AuHit«ir»r«l«r !• Ul. KIniiotill... ..HCA K «i>6 ..' '"** 

Hi»nkor('I>uim«r«ir. Now York City ... 2 BliM-k, b28 • 178 

MftxUtrA I)..ri<»n KlQ, L R.< :•■ 487 

ItdniiM A BoanI of AUIernmn 14 Alloij, :J6H • .. .'• ; ••- IWI 

HlarkA W.w ..UR.,fll\C.272 14ft 

Itloiiin I . < cirpormlion of Qu«he<-; ". 7 Q. 1* R- 18 " • ^*"» 

• Boone r. Eyre ••*. ......«• '-»« 

Brown r. Htate of Mnry latul . . , 12 Wheaton, 448. 165 

( unadR (JuarantHe t <». A McNIcIioIm (iljog. Newa, 323. •...:. 35», 3»2 

Carter A Molaon •» Leg. Newa, 180 ; « H. of 

''L.<tP. C.saO 318 

Charbouneau A Davla... 20L.C.J.1«7 '• r376 

Cliegary r. Jenkins..^ ••••3 Sandfoid, 413 -••« 370 

-^hildemjcfeOBle.,^.^-^.^;.!^^.^^. t-\\ Mj«-I'»K»''' '*•'' • • • •^.i:::: '^^ 

Church r. Cou8in8...A r 28 Q. B., U. C. .Vtt) ,».. ^SOt 

Citi«eii«LLn«u"""» Co. v. Panona ...... 6 Leg. Newa, 26 ; 7 H. of I* 

A P. C. 100 150, 404 

City of FrdQeriiktou v. The Queen 3 Can^ Spp. Ct Rep. 506. ... 150, 404 

Intreal A Walker.....: M. L. R, 1 Q. B. 4ti» , 484 

CoAimonwealth r. Hamilton Manf. Co. .12 AUen,298.. ... 143 

Compagnie du Richelieu A Ont. A 8t. Jean, M. I^ R., 1 Q.B. 262. ..'..., 280 

Corporation of Three Rlvert v. Suite: .... 5 Leg. Newa, 330 404," 410 

CuBhlng ADupuy ....3 Leg.NewB,171 ; 6 H. L. A 

I'.C.400 100 

DearooheH A Gauthier. ' v«< 6 teg- Newa, 404 .... 280, 261, 280 

Dimech ». Corlett 12 Moore P. C. 100 271 

Dobief.Teinporalitle8 Board 7H.L.&P:C.13«; 6Legal 

^ . ' Newa, 58 ... 100 

DonoifARivet. ....7 L.d R. 267 16 

DowABlack .....L. R.,« P. C. 272 102, 104 

Dukeof NewcaaUe%Morria.. 14H. L.662. 186 



French et i 

Fryer A Mm 
Oatcnon r. Hi 
(ilaholni r. 1 

Hamilton A 
ll«Nlgnr. R« 

MoKan A \\«^ 
.lonea A The 



Kiab r. fbn: 
Lefebvra A ( 
j4tprojion V. 
I>ockhart v. I 
liOughboroufi 
Lovatt V. On 

Mc(^>nnell A 
.Mcd()UgaU A 
McCuUougli 1 
MinorAUih 
Molaon t\ Bt. 



Monk* 



^ 



Eaatern Towoahipe Bank A Pacaud . ....1 L. C B. l!2t(. 



33 



"Oltver n IJBirM 
Uibom V. Bai 
UuimetAMa 

Paria ACoati 
Pftul t. Virgil 
I'^riam A Doi 
hilow, Ex pc 
I'ortland pan 
Houlln t'. Con 

4'rieatly p. Foi 
Procnreur k I 

Queen Inanra 



Railroad Co. t 
Haattmy AVi 

Reg. V. Bain . . 



- w^fj-f" 



^ "i'^^WWV 



TABLF OF TABW rtf Km 






Fwneh ct »1. ••. C)«rh«r eit nl ' LR.IC P. D.7B7j L R. 

aC. P. n. M7.? 449 

Kry«rAMorUi«| „ ,,u R, .Uli. Wr. ttift . . . , . IHA 

0««(non n Ht Dnnii. \ l2L.aj.»7»» ' M 

(»l«holnir. Il»y«i...'. ^^.,.. -jm, 270 

lUmlltoii A Wall .'....^ ., 24 Lc.X4»' 1ft, 21 

Ho. Ik« r . R«B . . ,• 7l4^Hnfri.lH,»U.vtL. 

., ,„ , '• : A I', CI 117. 150. Hi3. lift; 404 

MnKKii <V fW^ml^r 21 kf^ J.lOl.. . ....^ 170 

J<meii A Tli« Montrra! CotUin To 1 I^k- N«wii. 460 ; 24 I* C ' 

. ^ J. 101. ■■ .V . . • 5M4. *346 

Klahr.ffei«y ^ R, 10 Q. B. 668.,...-... 449 

L#febvre4aoMelln.....: , HL.O.J "ft., - 16 

j4>projion r. City of OtUwa ^ fartwrlght, 035 1A« 

[.ockhartr. Falk '.. ..v*. ...L. H. lOEich. 182 462, 483 

Loughborough ABItlw....- 5^e«Um, 317.^.. ...... 18| 

Lowtt f. Grand Trunk Railway Co. v 8 Ug. Nawa, 98 866 

-lit 

MKVmnell & Murphy. LB., 5 P. C. 218 i . ! 180 

.Molfcugall « The Union Navigation Co. .21 L. C J. 08.. 344, 346 

McCuUough V. t^ate of Mary Ikiwl 4 Wlieaton Sup. Ct, 810 . 1^3^ l«tt 

Minor A Gllmonr. ..«L. C. R 118.....^...v..-. 15 

Molaon t\Ht. Loula.......* •••• - .•' .,. .....»..<, .; 1^6 

Monk A Ayy.-Cfen.'^OuWt. >19 L C. J. 71^ ...... 304, 316 

'OTIver n la^don FfnTToBuranc^^ . . JtOOlaas! 638 .". 14S 

Oiboni«.Ba»ik of U. S...... .; »Wheaton,738 166 

UuimetAMarcband.....'.' 6 Rev". Leg. 361 304 

ParlaACoatuw ..10 Q.L.Rr^ 849 

Pftul t. Virginia .'..O.Wallace, 108 160 

I'^riam A Dompierre ...l Leg. NeWa, 6'.... ..... 289 

HIlow, Ex parte i.. .;^. ...... .6 Leg. New»,209 410 

Portland ]Bank'«'. Apthorp. 12 Mass. $2 144 

Houlin v. Corporation of Quebec .0 Leg. News, 214 ; 7 Q.L.R 

387 186,410 

289 



4'riestly t-. Fowler V ^JfSj, . 3 M. A W. 1 



Procureur k Braneaa.* 



V 



,.T^i.L.R,>jlp.C191 vl88 



Queen Insurance Ck>. A Parapns. . . . \. . . . 7 H. L. A P. C 96 ; 6 Lw. 

" i,28..........,.7T90,19 



News, 



<^ 



191 



Railroad Co. t>. Pbnntaton 1 . ^ . . . . 18 Wallace, U. a 106 

I RsBfoo y 4 Un ioD NavigaUon Co. , .^^. . . 1 Leg. News, 494 ; 24 L.C J. C 

r . 133., 342,844,346 

|Reg.r.BaIn....:...-..r.... ..4.....J!8 L.CJ.,827...... .. 232,236 



^^ 



r 




TABLE 6F cases CITED. 



1/1 



'I . 



.NAMIOrCigl. WRRaR RlPOBTID. Paoi. 

Reg.r. Boardman... 30U.C.Q.B. fisa.w.... 4I4 

HW.t>,JuBUoea of Surrey..... .... .....L. B.,6 Q. Rfl3 188 

Bibg.v. Kerretsl .....»v^...3 Leg, News, 121 . .... 404 

Reg.r.Lawreiine. 43 U.C. Q: B,164.. .403, 413,4>4 

Reg. r. Martin 21L.C.J. 180..;... 41 

Reg.O'Rourke 32 U. C. C. P. 388 ; 1 Ont^^^ 

Rejx Q.B.D. 404 47p 

Rex I'. Mawbey. Term Rep. 038. 232 

River Wear r. Adamaon ' ..LR., 2 App. Cas. 703 187 

Rochette & Ouellette 9 Q.L.R. 301 ,73 74 

RoBs&Del^ryetal.... ..;........ ....0 Leg. Ntw8,402;v.;... J 310 

Ro8a&LaiigloiB...i y...M.L.R., 1 Q. ^.^Sft. ..... 294 

Russell V. The Qnieen .^ . . . . . . .., L. B., 7 H. of L. & P. C. 

j ' , 829 '. ,..^. 150,404 

Severn r. tlie Queen ...2 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 70... 

145,101,194,403,403 
Springer t'. Vf^fyi Staleji 102 U. 8. 597 ... 131, 176 

Tnlly nJBowling • L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 182 . . 271, 273 

Union Navigation C^. & ConillarU ..... 21 L. C. J. 03. 342, 344 

Union St. Jacques & Belisle 20 L. C. J. 29 ; L. R., P.C ' 

^\ 31 189,190 



VeaEie Slink v. Fmino. 



-.8 Wallace, 533. 



120, 131 



Weaton V. Charleston 2 Peter's Rep. 407. 

Williamson & Rhind 22 L. C. J. 107..... 



155 
487 



.d' 






^^ ^ 




^^.7V- 



into. Paoi. 

i63...w.... 414 

3 188 

!I. .... .... 404 

I4...403,413,4>4 

."•• 41 

S8; 1 Ont. ^ 

.484 47p 

J8......... 232 

8.763 IW 

>........' j7S, 74 

»2..'.^.J..../ 310 

;.28ft...... 294 

L. & R C. 
...,« 150, 404 

Rep. 70... 
161,194,403,463 
. ..... 131,176 

182.. 271,273 

342,344 

*R., OP.C. 
.'.... 189,190 



17... 



126, 131 

... 155 

... 487 



TABLE OF STAT^UTES OTED. 



Impkbul. 

14Geo.3,c.t<3(A.D.1774).. 
3»Gw3,c.31(A.D.1791.).. 
43 Ck(o. 3. ch. 69 

27428 victch.5i..:;:::::- \^ 

B. N. A. Act, 1867 (80 & 31 Vic. 



PiOI. 

• 168 

• 168 
139 



DoMoiioir. 



43 Vic. 
43 Vic. 



Paoi. 



ch. 
cb. 



22, g.7.. 
22, 8. 12. 



..... 105 
-.302-321 




BN^A.Act,8ec.l29 7 J^ 

43 & 44 Vict., Employe™ Lia- 
bihty Act, 1880..., 289 

Lower Canada dc Canada bejbre 
CmfedtraHon. 



Province of Quebec. 



462 
41^ 



59Gea 3. eh. 9 ..-i"r*^ 

n Q*T^J'^- "»'• 128, ■. 58.. ?. :: 

^?iK}[- "** Seigniorial Act 
ol 1854) o '»•) 

23 Vic ch. 59, 8. 17. *" 

23 Vift ch. 72 8. 10 
27 & 28 Vic. ch. 51 



27&28Vic.«b.43..... , 
27&28Vic.cbj«0,8.11. 
29 & 30 Vic. ch. 66.8. 11. 

31 Vic. ch. 7, 8. 10. 

31 Vic. ch. 24, 26.. : 

31 Vic. cb.37., ....... 

31 Vic. ch."37,8.9..... 

32 Vic. ch. 70, 8. 18. 

,^Vic.ch.l7,8.2 

33Vic.ch.32 ■ 



.23, 27 
•.238^3 



!3 8J{|3 

:m 

340-346 
... 237 
...248 
... 242/ 
•32,31 
297-.300 



421 
410 
463 



c. ft c.,ch. 85.'. ..■.■.:::::":'•* m 

r ■ s rV. ' u*"-.!**' **• ®' '7 • -368-373 
r s r7V*'*u%'»^9'^0 ..347-349 
^•|f-^-.«h. 15,8. 127.. 

t. 8. L. C, ch.41, pp, 406,407. . 



36Vic.ch.49.. 
37Vio.ch.2.. 

37 Vic. cb. 51,8.123... 

- ch. 
39 Vic. ch. 8. 



108 

108 

16 



Dominum SUUute$. 



29& 30 Vic. ch. 25.... ...... 309, 317 

Z V— Y^^- «h. 29, 8. 44 . . . . 473-479 
34 Vic. ch. 5, 8. 46 Z 

38V,vS-?i'/i*^/"* 28,469^173 
}%^ ** (Inaolvent Act of 

41 vjPi % ^' 2» • • 357-364 

41 Via ch. 16 (Cwwdft Temper 

7M^.**«f»878)----- 160 



43 Vic. ch. 6. 



106 



34 Vic. ch. 68. S^eMuNiCTP^L 

CODK. 

.36 Vic. ch. 28...; 90^ om 

.... 62 
62 

39 Vic. ch. 62...... ■.::::;••••• is? 

40 Vic. ch. 22, 8. 22 .1*67-11* 

Jn^achl'fii^"'*^— -^^S 

iiir- ''P-^'*' 19 ..107-112 

42443 Vic. ch. 6a 237-244 

434^vi;:;i::i^;a;;;;ui*S^»« 

444?rfeh^f.!«««.-*^436 

44A46Viach.i6...... :::::: Jg 

46 Vic. ch. 76..... ....;•• -^^'g? 

SviacJl;."-* :.V461-4S 

46 Vic ch. 16 . . .... ........ 473_47o 

Pforineeof Ontario, . 

B. 8. a ch. 181, 8. 67 403 

Ontario laoense Act of 1877... 160 



\ 




'U 






Iv 



<:^^ 






I- 



. ■■(. 



ARTICLES OF CODES CITED. 



#■ 



! 



Cteil Code of Lower Canada. [Page 

Art.6. ...305 

11... 308 

, 1 7, J 23 .... . . . , . . ...... 326, 328 

338 •■•■•* ••>• ■••••«. (••••• 4DO 

352 196 

."iOl.'. ..: 204 

501-303. 207 

646 y 381, 415,422 

561 .415,422 

656...... -•• 381 

■ 658. .v.... ......... 370, ;«0,381 

. 931 ....483,492 

991... .279,280 

1,000 "'. 279,280 

I-UIm •••••■ ■• ■••••'• .•••'•• JSXo 

1,036 329,330 

1,037 330 

1,038 330 

. 1,047 8,469,470 

1,053 68,290 

1,054...... 290,293 

1,073 50;68 

1,076... 60 

1,077 48,50,54,55,56,57,58 

1,093 338 

1*1«« •■••••••••• •■••v ••■■•• '4 

1,241....... .... 8 

1,243 321,322,324 

1,635 247,248,250 

, 1,643... 331 

1,983-1,984,.... 307 

IfilofF* • • • • »» * -••• •••••- oUuy olX 

1,993.... #. 306 

. 1,994. 31,34,35,305, 

307,310-315,317 
1,998 3M, 327, 330-332 

2,008 311 

2J013. 396,-397 

2,032 306 

^JUCO •••• •••••»' •••••• •••• «Xm) 

2,236 ,. 418 

2,250 483,484,403,496 

2,258 279 

2,270 ; 488, 484, 493, 496 

2,<l^ 89,90 

ft467 4W 

V 



Codt of Civil Procedure, L. C. [Pack 

Art 231 ...........321-824 

234 39-41 

^OU •••••• •••■«• • • •••••••• Off 

243 ...;..... ; 39 

<«84.. ,.. ...... .... 40,41 

428. ..i. ....... .... ...... 5» 

510.. ..........> HI 

595 441,443,444 

606. 311 1 

606 ••• ••••• oO| o«i o4f So 

607 305,311 

611... ....302,307-3l!l| 

709 ...•>....... l(i 

727 S 

751..... « 

761.. 1,« 

1,016 ........347,360 

1,025..... % .351 

1,027. I 351 

1,058 ........ 30.5 

1430.. 378, 375 1 

Mvnkipttl CodCfP.^l 

19 2i96,i98, 3001 

27 •••••# •••••••• «••••• 2UDy 2<]f8 1 

346 ••••>• •■•••• c^ •••••• tn7| ouUI 

348 ......849,3501 

349 349l 

373 431 

475 

810 2011 

867 ...•.• 

868, 870, 872, 887, 888 .... . 

884....... 202,206,^ 

926, 1,061.... 

UDO. ■•• •*'•••.••••*••• ••••«• 

jjOV •••■»•••• •••••••••'■••« 

V. - ' . 

; (Me NapoUu/n^ 



• ••• ••••••• •••• 



.. 5| 
56,51 



64a ..... 

M09 

1460.1,151 
1,183..... 

1482,1,183.... ...... 

1,188,1490... 

l|OQO ••••• ••••••■•••*■••• 

2J0vD ••• ••••••••■••«••! 







fTr» ft J 






V .■■■./■;- 



idtirc, X. C [Pa0B 



REPORTS OF OASES 



DECIUXD IN THK 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENC^ 

IN APPEAL, 

MONTREAL. 



' February 21,^ 1884. 

(hram Dobion, CJ., Monk, Ramsay. Cross, Baby. JJ. 
yiMcDONELL Et al., 

{Plaintiffs below) 

Appellants; 

/'■;■' AND ■ ' . ; ■ \ . , . 

BUNTIN, 

• {Defendant below) 

"* '^ Respondent. 

Procedure— Judgment of dislritmlion—Art. t61, C. C, i>, 

//»-«, that a party, whose claim against an immoveable seised and sold 
^'the sheriff appears in the Kegistrar-s certificate, but has not beea 
collocated in the report of distribution, and who has &iled either to 
Zll ?■ ^^"^ of distribution or to appeal from the judgment 
homdogatrng the same, or to present a re^u civOe or an oppStion 
■gamst such judgment, as required by art. 761 of the VaAq oTc P 
canno^by direct action, recover the amount of his said claim from' 
the party collocated m such report to his prejudice. 

This was an appeal from a judgment of the Superior 
Uurt at Montreal (Rainvillb, J.), on the 16th February, 
1888, maintaining the defense en droit filed bv resident 



^ 



T 







"HJl 






MONtREAt LAW REPOBTH. 



to appellants' declaration and action, and dismissing their 
action with costs. (2t L, C. J. tS.) 

The appellants' action was instituted on the 14th Feb- 
ruary, 1882, against respondent and one Joseph Bier, fpr 
(he recovery from respondent of a sum of $830, with 
interest from the Ist November, 1879, alleged to be due 
t0 them by hin(i in the proportion of |110 to each. 

The declaration alleged that the appellants atg the "legal 
owners of a baUleur defmds claim lor $880 andlintiarest Jw' 
aforesaid, on certain real estate described vin the 'declara- 
tfon, which had been judicially sold, on the 22nd of 
liecember, 1880, by the Sheriff" of Montreal^ in the oiuse' 
No. 2589, wherein one Thomas,, Dickson was plaintiff^and 
said Joseph Dier was defendant. ^ [ ( 

That on the ^th February, 1881, a report of distribution 
of the Jiet proceeds of the said sale was made and posted 
up by the Prothonotary pf the said Superior Court ; and by 
the eleventh and last item Of said report the balance of the 
proceeds of said sale, after collocation of certain claimants, 
creditors and opposants, was awarded to s^id respondent 
as follows :— " 11. To the opposant, Alexander Buntin, in 
part payment of his claim amounting to two thoueiand 
four hundred dollars, bearing -interest at eight per cent., 
from the 18th November, '*18'7'7; founded upon an obligation 
uid mortgage from Jotseph Dier, in his favor, executed 
before Hunter, Notaryt on the 18th May, 1869..., $2812.M ^| 
Costs of opposition tp'Messrs. !E|ethune & Bethune. . 18.60 

That the said collocation was contested and finally 
homologated on the Itth day of May, 1881, by judgment 
of the said Superior Court, and the said sums httye been 
paid to the said respondent. ^ , ■ " 

The declaration then alleged that, according to the 
Begistrar's certificate, filed in the said cause, the appellants 
ought to have been collocated for said sum of $330 and 
interest preferentially to said respondent, and by the con- 
clusions of the declaration the aj^pellants prayed that the 
said respondent should be declared to have i^ceived the 
said sum of $330 and interest through error of law and 




COURT OF QUEEN'S BENC 




8 



fjujt, and that he should be cbjidemhed to i>ay/the s^me to 
the appllants. , -, 

Th(^ respondent filed a defense au foml en droU axA a jjlea 
to/the/ merits ; but as the plea to the meriljs does hot come 
/p pi^ the present appeal, it need not novr be *pferred to. 

Th^ demurrer so filed by r^ftspondent Was a* follows :— 

Tlib said defendant, Alexander Buntin, lor plea or d^/enm 

au fond en droit to the declarMion and action of the said 

pjaintiffs, saith that the allegations of said declaration jire 

insufficient in law to enable the said plaintiffs to have 

and mai^taii^themclusions of their said declaration for 
the following reasons: — i , / 

« Because*, acajording to the allegations of said declara- 
tion the monies sought to be recovered by this action were 
awarded and adjudged to be p^id to the said Alexander 
Buntin, under and by virtue of a judgment Sif this honor- 
able Gourt duly and solemnly rendered, homologating the 
report of distribution in said declaration referred to, and the 
said judgment has never been vacated, revdked, reversed 
or otherwise annulled or set aside, either wholly or in 
p^rt, and is still in full force, vigor and effect ; 

'^' Becausei according to law,, said judgment ^uld not be 
reyersed, either wholly or in part, except by judgment of 
thte Court of Queen's Bench, on appeal to that Court duly 
instituted;" ' 

I' Because said judgment could not be otherwise vacated, 

I reioked, annulled or set aside, either wholly or in part, 

except by means of a petition in revocation of such judg- 

i mdnt, and theii tfnly on legal grounds, and that no legal 

grounds, for so vacating, revoking, annulling or setting 

Lasi^e said judgment are assigped in said declaration ; 

'j^use, even if said judgment were legally reversed 
or Mormed or otherwise vacated, revoked, annuUed or set 
aai^e, the said defendant. Alexander Buntin, could only be 
condemned to return to the Shenff'so muqh of said monies, 
as the court inig^t order him so to refund ; 

"Because fii0^resent action is not, or in' the mAiire o£ 
a petition iaireWsation of said indgment. nor Z -q *y^^ 



/ 



:^ 



mi. 

MoDonell 
Uuiuin. 



._;_ .__L 



:■ ■:• -U 



\-» 



'f 



UN. 

MoOonell 
fiuntin. 



4 



MONtftEAL LAW REPORTa 




any legal grounds of suc^h revocation assigned or i^leged 
in said declaration ; ,\ " "' ,^.=r-. \ 

" Because the said defenidant, Alexander Bnntin, cannot, 

by reason of anything alleged in said declaration, bb 

• legally condemned to pay to the 8aid plaintiffs the sunftis 

of money by them, claimed in and by said declaration and 

action, or any part thereof ; ■ ■' 

" Bet^ause the conclusions of said declaration do -nc^t 
legally flow from nor are they legally justified by the 
allegations of said declaration. 

The case having been hoard on the issue\raised by the 
demurrer,'. the demurrer was maintained ai^d the appel- 
lants' action dismissed with° costs. 

The following was the judgment so rendered by the 
Superior Court :— \ 

"La cour, aprcs aywir entendu les dem'andei-esses et le 
defendeur, Alexande • Buntin, par leurs^ avocats sur la 
defense en droit, plai 16e pa,r le dit d(gf6^deur Bnntin a 
Taction en cette cause; avoir examine la procedure et 
deliberc ; 

" Attendu 'que les detnailderesses alleguent qu'elles 
avaient une hypothdqWe sur une partie d'une^propH^t^ 
connue et designee colnme 6tant le No. 642 des^^Ian et 
11 vre det renvoi officielk du qnartier Saiiit-Antoine de la 
cit6 de Montreal; que Ite dit lot No. 642 6tait poss6^6 par 
Joseph Dier qui ravaitl acquis des autenrs des demande- 
resses en diffgrents teknps, et lequel lot comprenait des 
lopins de tcrre d6signeJ| comine lots Nos. t, 8, 9 et 10, qtie 
le dit lot No. 642 anraitUt^ vendu par le Sharif de ce disr 
trict, et qtie sur le prodnit d^ la vente Ip d6fendeur Bui|tin\ 
aurait 6t6 colloqu6 par 1* rapport de distribution pour une 
somme de 12,312.80, et plpur $18.60 frais d'oppositioii, la 
dite collocation 6tant basjpQ sur une obligation consentie 
an dit Bnntin par le dii Dier le 18 mai 1869, laqnelle 
somme lui aurait 6t6 payt 

"Que les demanderess4s auraient fait renouveler Jeur 
hypotheque sur le dit lot No. 642 suivant la loi, ^ qtie 
cei>endant elles n'anraient Was 6t6 colloqa6e8. ■:^'V\_ 





^t'fr'f •'^r YT"T "^ii ^ "^ v/tTs^^^^ sJfWj'i'T^^f^ 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



J^ 



X 



"Que par son obUpration le dit Bantiu n'iviit gypo- 
thdque que sur le lot No. 10 et nDn sur les lotA Nos. 7 8 
Bt 9, et que d'ailleura il n'a jamais renouvel6 son hypo- 
theque, laquelle n'apparaissait pas au certificat du regis- 
trateur, et qu'il n'aurait pas d6 6tre colloqu6 au pifijttdicel 
des domanderesses doiit I'hypoth^que apparaissait au dit 
certificat; que la collbpation du dit Buntin a 6t6 contestfe 
«t homologu6e par jugemont de la Cour Sup6rieuw rendu 
le 17 de mai 1881 ; C^ \ 

Attendu que les demanderesses concluent Jk co que le 
dit lot No. 642 8oit d6clar6 avoir 6t6 j\ Tfipoque de la dite 
vente par le dh6rif. hypoth6qu6 en faveur des demande. 
resses au pliemont d'une somme de |8dO avec int6r6t 
comme balance du prix de vente ; et d ce qu'il soit declar^i 
que le dit d6fendeur Buntin a 6t6 ill6galement colloqu6 
de tel montant, et A ce qu'il soit condamn^ A en rem- 
bourser les demanderesses ; 

" Attendu que le dit dfcfendeur Buntin a plaid6 par un^ 
defense en drpit, all^guant que le jugement homologuant 
le dit rapport dej distribution ne pouvait 6tre attaqu6 et 
r6vpqu6 que par un jugeinfint de la Cour d'Appel, ou 
par voie de requAte civile pour les raisous donnant lieu k 
la requ6te civile, ce qui n'a pas 6t6 fait, que m6me danTle 
cas ou le dit jugen^ijl s^erait r6voque, le defendeur Buntin 
ue pourrait 6tre cpndftmn6 qu'A remettre au Sh6rif tel 
montant que la cour jugerait apropos ; 

"Oonsidfirantqu'en vertu de I'artiole 761 du code de 
procMure civile, les dites demanderesses ne pouvaient se 
pourvoir contre le dit jugement que par opposition, dans 
les quinze jours, <ju par appel, ou par requfete civile ;, 
qu'elles n'ont pas prodilit tel*^ opposition ou interjet6 
appel, et qutf leur pr6sente dein|nde n'all6gue aucune des 
^fisp^donnant lieu d la requdfcB civile ; 

" Q&8id6rant que la defense on droit du dit d6fendeur 
^untinest bieVfondfie la maintient, et d6boute les demwi- 
deresses de leur action quant au dit Buntin, avec d^pens 
distraits k Messieurs Betbujie & Bethune, avocats du 
defendeur, Buntin. '' 
Cross, J.:— 

The appeal in thiH^fime fa firgm a judgment fm s taining 



\ 



MeDonell 
Buntin. 



r. 



i 



y~ 



,«»sr>"' 







MONTREAL LAW HEPORTfl 



vm . 

MsDonall 
Huntin. 



J^, 



f^^emurrer, and diBmissin^ a stlit brought by the appel- 
lants against the respondout. 

The declaration complain^, that Buntin received under 
a judgment of distribution a sum of $880, yrhich of ri^ht 
belonged to- the appellants, under circumstances which 
may be briefly stated as follows : — 
» Joseph DW Was owner of a property in St-Antoine 
suburb, consisting of lot cadastral No. 642, which was 
again subdivided into a number of smalllots. 

One Joseph Dickson held a judgment against Dier, 
under which he brought the property to sale. The sheriti" 
made a return of the proceeds accompanied by the regfis- 
tfar's certificate which the law required him to procure. 

This certificate sj^owed Buntin to be a hypothecary cre- 
ditor on the property to a large amount. 

It also showed that the autewrs, predecessors of the 
appellants, had a prior claim for their 1880, as original 
vendors of two of the sub-division lotjBf^ ft facJt which was 
overlooked, Buntin having been collocated for the eUtire 
balance of proceeds, after the expeiiipmpidL privileged 
claims, and the appellants omitted frbiSa" the collocation, 
although their registration was duly made, showing their 

priority. ' . • , • , ^ 

The judgment of distribution was homologated, and 
Buntin awarded the proceeds. 

I^he appellants claimed from Buntin and Dier, the defen- 
dant, that ^380 of money received by buntin should be 
declared the property of the appellants, and Buntin ho 
condemned to restore it to them, as having been received 
by him without cause and as money not due him, bui due 
to thie appellants. /' 

This writ was met by a demurrer, based chiefly upoui 
Art. 761 of the Code of Civil procedure, which reads " that 
" any party aggrieved by a ju^ment of distribution may 
" seek redress by means of an appeal, or a petition in 
" revociition, if there are grounds for it, whether he has 
" appeared in the suit, or his cl«im being mentioned iu[ 
" the certificate of hypothecs he has not appeared. " 

" Any creditor mentioned in the Registrar's certificate! 



s* 



.'V'^, 



-.-%•-' 



"•m T^:-^»t^ts5r"> 



ologated, and 



COURT OF QUEEIfB BENCH. ' : >j 

who hoM not appeared in the cause may, moreover, within 
16 dajTB, seek redrew by means of an pppo0itiou to the 
I " judgment. " 

The demurrer takes the further ground generally that 
the appellant has no legal recourse against the respondent 
for the uauses alleged. 

It is contended that the appellants having failed either 
to appeal in time or seek recourse within 16 days by 
petition in revocation of judgment, are not limited or 
precluded by the provisions of this article from seeking 
recourse by an independent action ; that it is a faculty 
j given to the party injured which he may exercise or not, 
as he sees fit, but that he may nevertheless sue for what 
belongs to him ; that the amount received by Buntin, and 
which ought to have been awarded to appellants, as their 
property, did not belong to Buntin, and ought to be res- 
tored to the appellants, the real owners. 

It is not strictly true that the money belonged to the 
I appellants ; they were creditors, and pretended to have a 
preference over Buntin, but he also was a creditor, and 
the question of priority is one to be determined by the 
Court. The appellants should have attended to their 
interest in the distribution of the monies, and raised any 
question they had to riuse before the monies were dis- 
posed of by the judgment of distribution. It is of import- 
jance that it should be so to avoid the great amount of 
I litigation that would dnsue if every person who found 
himself disappointed in the result of a distribution in- 
tended to be final, should be allowed to raise thfe question 
janew by an independent suit. 

Before the law was enacted, which requires th4 Sheriff 
Ito procure and return withihe proceeds of sale a Begis- 
jtrar's certificate, shewing the hypothecs on the property 
Isold, eveiy person who had a claim was obliged at the 
■peril of losing his recourse', to bring forward and fileihis 
Iclaim within a very limited delay, and watch the /distii- 
Ibntion of the monies to see that he had justice done him 
■according to his rank. Now that the registrar's certificate 
'- made a basis for collocating the rights of the parties, it 



int. 

MoDonall 

- *. 
Bnatia. 



r. 



tMi 

MnDunall 
Uuntln, 



8 



MONTKKAI, law IlKPcmTB. 



does not follow that <:omploto juMtice will neo^iiaarily- be 
doiifl a creditor! or that ho is gttaraiitud agaiiiHt miHtakeH, 
without' th» titerci8«^ of any diligence on his part. It is 
only a further protection and iiccurity to him, but goeii no 
further than, t le law itRwlf warrantH. Beyond this the 
law r^mainH fhu name, favoring the diligent, and^ atill 
requiring him to watch hiH interei^Jt against miHtiikes in 
the distribution of the monins. In this case the api>ellantH , 
have to sufier the conHequences of their neglect, and the 
judgment raus ; be confirmed. The aW&rd of the monies 
to Buutin must be considered a finalijty. , 
Ramhay, J. |— ^^ _^ .^^ 

This case was argued principally as if the difficulty 
in appellant's way was that by the judgment there 
was res Judi0a against appellants, and our attention 
Was specially directed to Art. 610 C. C. P. This is not, 
however, tht! iBal question. Persons called in by general 
advertisement H are not parties in the sense of Art. 1-241, 
C. C. lu the language of the old writers they are more 
i/iiibus resjutliaia non noi'^at. Appellant's real difficulty it 
that appellant 8 declaration does not bring the respondent 
within Art. I(i47 C. G. There was no error either of fact 
or of law in paying respondent. He was paid nndeira 
collocation msde according to law. The prothonotary is 
expressly enjoined by Art. 127 C. O. P. to make his report 
of distribution precisely as he made it ; that is, " he must 
iu;t ac(!ording to the apparent rights of the ^ai^ies" It 
was for the appellant to show within certain delays that 
these appearances were unreal. Not having done so, he 
loses his order of collocation, not on the principle of res 
Judicata, but pecause he has neglected to protect his^ right. 
It seems peiifectly clear that if respondent had received, 
to appellantis prejudice, money wbich was not due to 
him. the appellant might recover it. And so strong is this 
principle thajt our C. 0. P. has an article (761) which pro- 
vides a sp^ci^l proc^ure lo allow this question of indebt- 
edsresf to be raised in the suit, eVen after homologation 
of the report of distributioti, and sq^ long as the money, is 
befoife the Gburt. This, article/ shows, what is otherwise 



^^ '^^ 



f-.^ ^r ' 



,»^t™i»i'-"'^ T*''S'i^^>iF^1^,^^3'^p* *^^.^^»-^ F "-s* '^^'■■'■^P'fe^OT^P'*^^"^ ' < 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BKNCH, 



d 



j clear, the judgmeat of dilitribution tm far as regardii order 
is final, tLnd that it can only be aot aaide for the reason 
and in the manner in which other judgmenta can be aet 
tutide. Appellunt'M det^laration contains no such reason, 
and therefore J think it was rightly set anide on demurrer. 

Judgment of H. C. confirmed. 
^ "/. VaUhr., for nppelliuits. 
K Laflamme, Q. C, (louuHel. 
iBethune Sc Hethune, for reNpondentH. 
'^- («. B.) 



MoDonall 

k . 
Buntln. 



ur attention 



20 novombre 1H82. 
Cmim Monk, Ramaav, Tkhhier, Crosh et Bahv, JJ. 
Dame Marir Charuittk Mondki.kt et al., 
, {Dnnnmteura et( Ctmr Inf^eure,) 

APPfcLANTH : 



ET 



t 



Pierre Emile Roy, 



(Difmdeur en Cour Infirieure,) 

iNTIMfi. 

Serintude rielte—Banaiit^ — Ade' Seigneurial de 1864 — Preu^. 

testiimmiafe. 

Par acto departage paseuS en 1811 ontre lea propri4taires indlvis d'une 
seigneurie, il ftit stipule que lea oo-partageants ne bfttiraient aocun 

^ monlin A farine on & scie pour leur compte particnlier sur leura por- 
tions respectivee, A une lieue & la ronde den moulins existant alors 
Bur la dite seigneurie. Par acte de vente paas^ en 1860 un morceau 
de terre fonnant partie de la m«me seigneurie fiit vendu par le repr6- 
sentant d'un des dito oo-partageants, avec une stipulation portant 
que lea acqu^reara et leura repr^sentanta'ne pourraient en aucun 
temps conqtruire ou laiaser construire sui le dit lot aucun moulin A 
, (arine on k moudre le grain, que tel monlin fftt mA par eau, vapeur 
ou aucun autre pouvoir moteur. 

Jiioft : la Que I'lcte de 1811 a cr66 une servitude i^iproque en favour de 
chaque portion de la seigneurie divis^ par le partage. . 

2a Que si cette servitude ^taitde'aa nature une servitude seigneuriale, 
elle a 4iiA abolie par Facte qeigneurial de 1854, aoit que I'on considdre 
cette servitade oomme an droit principal ou acoenoire du priviltee 
debuiaUt^. ' ^ 




i<Ss.^4^;^^| 







.»' 



JLi 



m LAW REPOitm 



\ 



3* Que 8l J« .ill« MptvMudii n'4HM ptm adtfUMturlalit, nib • M comtltu^ 
«ii f«v«iir ,Vww^ w*ign»Mirl«, «t « ,l»i«t ,7 (»r la mniiMMlon lUi rim- 
iiitMihUi Mil faMiiir (liiiitMil iillo kyftit 6t^rf4^. 
^ y«« l'».'U..I« u.iit*' a«j^W« ii'apaa orM iiim mrvltu.ki i^tlUimAla"! 
(KWkviiMMii urih ol»UKa<lfl*i imraonraBlls, attMrulii qu'll ii1n<il<|li« ftiicnin 
h^riume doiiihliuit „ 

fi», ^i? ''•xi.teiiro .run iM^rl^ doinjrWwl n«n <-<inaUU<ii |wr IWtn n« 
iwuf t)M«tra^{«>>H«|MrU|ir«iuvatMitifiionlaM^ , 

Ii» pr<iiM!nto inti<^n * 6t6 iutMiit^<« par I«n appiilimU contro 
I'intim^' .oinino ppopriAtairM dun imm«ubl«\ pour fairo 
df'.liir»'r quo ««»t iiniiicuhlv oat gn-v^"- duiw Norvitudi> 
rf^wllo mm tn/ijiranJi, ot pouf fairo coiidauiiior I'iutim^* t\ 
lUmoUr un mouliu t\ fariim par lui 6rig6 lar c<» terrain. 
LVtioii orit haa6(« ttur Iuh t'aitM Huivanti : — 

Par ttiUi d« |mrtag« du 2a H«pt<»mbr« IHU, ontro H. 

Mario^ Diiloruio «>l I'ierro U. D«'hartz<rh, nloni i>roprif)tair«s 

iudivJH do la 8oigueuri« d« Ht; llyacintbo, il fut ntipul* 

que <!o doruior aurait \m troiB^huitiAlnea de la seignourie, .| 

«t M. Dolortno Iuh {^iuq-huiti^moH. Hur oette soigueurio 

se trouvaieni don mouliuH i\ farino i\ St. Hyaointhe et 4 8t. 

Pie, doiit uu, situ^' nur la riv«i 8ud do la rivi^ro YamaHlm, 

d^vait par le dit aoto rostor la pmuri6tf« iudivise des ditu 

Delormo ot Dohartzch iwur ^S|w5s-huiti6me« et cinq- 

huitidmeti respeclivemout. Lea pattageanta s'obligoaient 

mutu«lloimmt '• do no bfttir aqcun moulin k farine ou d 

•* ficie pour lour oorapte particulier A une lieuo d la rondo 

''desdits moulins a farine; ^naia au-delA d'une lieue do 

♦ difltanco, a compter defe dits mouli98 k fijrine ci-deuauH 

" mentionn^d, chacune des dites parties poni|Ta bAtir pour 

^^n compte priv6 et particulier tel moulin A farine ou i 



hie que bon lui semblera dans I'^tendue de terri^n k 
"chacune respectivement 6chuo par ces pr68ent 
" qu'aucmie puisse-prfetendre drc||,de bAtir sur I 
^* 6chue k Tautre aucun moi^lin Afarine ou k soie.' 

Le 2 mai }SftO, I'hon. L. T. Drummond et Dame^ jTe 

eljar^zclx, son 6pou8o, 6tant venus aux droits de M. 

^«Mjg«**» l>o«T sa^^^Mwt de la^ite seigneurie et ponr les 

*»;o^l^|ijfe» Mivis du moulin de St. Pie susdit, ven- 

^"^! ^mB^ ^idson ,pt Robert Mackay, syndics k la 

faillil^Bmif^Hiiw Jose|>h, Savage lui-mdme, un morceau 



.^i. 





•ff!|*f '!;»«^ 4» T" • —• fm: ■T-F' WS.r^^ r- .' 



'^ 



(VHJkT or QtTREN'H HKlfCB, 




*»r- 



I do t«rr» •¥«« line tann«rio tt ttii« «dkH«, rfllli d^^Wi 
JliHMilin 1^ TariiiM At d« i» Urro en (lueiition avec )r Hti|»ul»'» •«»f*»'^ 
|4»|W «i«iv4nt« :— " U l»eiug. however, etprei^ agmtl ""■ 
" tW the laid purchMom nor th««ir niiaiKii' iihAll ever »t 
" any time or on any pr«ftoiir«« htiild uj allow or iiutn>r t||^ 
" be built on the Maid lot of liuid, or on uny purt of the 
" Black or Houth brnmih ttf the YiiinttMk» riv«'r, "within the 
" limitM of the '**^\^WJ^'» Saint Hyiirinthe, any Hour mill 
" or urriiit mill (p4(|f'dfhA|ii ill where ><rain oUany kind 
" Nhall Im^ g|(>4pl. #%eUie} the Mam«HN> driven l»y wHtter, 
• Mteani o|5i«uy4lHH(Kniotive pQwer." 

L4<'^W|^**'''4, M el Mn\e Drumniond vendirent au 
Juge MiHW^t une partie de la iteign«mri«> de St. Hy»<;inthe 
qoi ^?tait <-omprtM> AanH lea troia-huiti«^meH ^!chuH en j>ar- 
tage h M. Debart/oh par I'a^te du 23 aeptembre IHII. I)e 
»^?tte vente eNt exwpW? '.' le ixmvoir d'eau et terrain en 
" d^'iM'ndaut aur la bramhe aud de la<)ile riviere YamaHka, 
" vendti t\ un nomm^t StinifMon et qui eat?lpo8«f;d/r jiar i;e 
" dernier ou sea ayantH droits vn Jrunc alii^bMurier on vertu- 
" d'actea entre lui et lea vendeura ; leque^srraiu et. pou- 
" voir d'eau eat ititufr^ environ trenteou quarante arpenta 
" dii village do St. l*ie, et aera eiploitC* par lo ditStimpaon 
",dn ses ayanta droits tel qu'il ra6t6 juiiqu'A le jour." „ 

L'immeuble ainai vendu A Stimpaon parait «trelemdme 
que celui que M. et Mme. i;)rummond avaient pr6c6dem* 
ment vendu A Davidaon et Mackay, et le d6fendeur parait 
I'ayoir a<*qui8 de I'hon. P. B. koy, son pere, qui en avait. 
a<qui8 une partie du shferif de St. Hya(;inthe lora d'une 
vente jndiuiaire par lui faite aur uu nomm6 Ornam Stimp- 
Hon le 16 novembre 1867. et 1 'autre partie d'un nommfe 
I^ThtodoreStimpsoi^auasi adjudicataire lora de la m£me 
irente, fg||p»te du% avril 1872. 

Dans lecourant de Tfitfiet de Tautomne de 1878>d6fen- 
deur id fait construire aur re terraip un moulin A farine et 
a commence jk y moudre vera la fin do 1878 du le com- 
mencement de 1879. A cette ^poque c^lq dea demandeura 
6taient venna aux droita de M. le jupre Mondelet pour lea 
trois-huitidmea indivis, et lea d«ux autrea demahdeurs 
(leB Morin) 6taient venns aux droits de H. Marie Delorme 



/^ 




I 



•J--K- 



■'r' 



;','-j.,»;^- 




( >■ 



i /•■ 



M0IHt|l|l«t 

■ Boy.' 



IC I 



(■ i 




w w 



drrRi 



■f ,,:• 



12 . / •■ MdirrREAL 'tjia^ RtPORm 

tf ■' »■ ^■. . - ■*■'. 

- '. /■ ■" -. •• '^ " - ■ j 

IMur Ms cvfq-hniti'^bAes jlndM; des terrains compris dans 

M partage dQ IMT. v ^ :\ ' 

Le/^ff Janvier 1879 lesdemandeursqnt protests led^fen- 
deur/et lui ont donn^ avis de d^molir son moulin, et sur 
sfus de.ce foire ont intents cette action, 
d^fendenr h oppos^^ i^ cette action six exceptions 
pHtiemptoires et uno d6fense en fait, all6guant en sub- 
st$nce, comme suit :— 

{u'il avait acquis le terrain en question de son pftre, 
cc/mme susdit, et^qii'aucune mention de charges ou servi- 
tijldes n'avait et6 faite lors de la vente par le sh^rif A sou 

ire et an dit Theodore Stimpson. 

Que les actes mentiouufes dans la d<^claration ne font 
jiucunement voir -que le terrain du d6fendeur est sujet a 
me servitude au profit des demandeurs. 

Que l^s demandeurs ne peuvent se pr6valoir ntilement 
les stipulations contenues en I'acte du 23;, septembre 1811' 
Icontre le d6fendeur qui n'y a pas 6t6 partie. • 

Que la prohibition de bfttir un moulin contenue dans 
I'acte du 2 mai n'a constitu6 aucune servitude sur le dit 
terrain en faveur d'un autre heritage ou de son proprie- 
taire. - 

Qug^ le defendeur, tant par lui jque par ses auteurs, a eu 
depuis ie 16 novembre 186t la possession continue et non 
interrompue, paisible; publique et non Equivoque e't 
titre de propri^taire, du terrain en question. 

Qu'il a acquis ce terrain de bonne foi et pal' bona titres, 
publiqueihent et au vu et su des demandeurs, et saiis pro- 
testations de leiir part il a constmit depuis juillet a 
dfecfembre 1877, un canal et un moulin a farine a deux 
stages valant au^ moins $6,000, et qui est enx>p6ration 
depuis le ler novembre t878. 

tue les di^mandenrs n'ayant Jamais fait connaitre leurs 
pretentions att ^^fendeur et ne Fayant jamais mis en 

leure de cessei^ses travaiix, ne peuvent maintenant 

(emander la suppression d'ouvrages et de travaux qui ont 

bus 6t§, avant prot6t ei^mise en demeure, terminus et 

/ej^§cnt68 sur le terrain appartenant %u d6fendear. 

Que le d6cret des terrains en question ~ par le sh6rif le 






-<a 



COURT OF QTJ BEN'S BENCH. 



18 



US compriB dans 



• •■' . 1,%' 

15 novembre 1S61 a eu I'effet de purger toutes les chai^ges 
Bt stsrvitudes non app&rentes qui poavaient exister sur 

Sceux. ' 

Que les demandeurs n'ont pas et n 'out jamais eu ancuns 

roits de servitudes ni, autres sur les dits terrains, mais 
jue, en supposant m^n^e qu'ils en eussent ens, ces droits 
juraient 6t6 enti^remeikt purges par le d6cr6t du 15 
ibvembre 1867. I 

Qu'en outre, les demandeurs eussent-ils eu des droits 
ie servitudes ou autres, ces droits seraient eteints et pres- 
1 rits en vertu de la prescription de dix ans acquise en 
p'avenr du d^fendeur tiers-acquereur de bonne foi. 

Que dans le cas ou les deinandeurs anraient eu des 
iroits, le staitut provincial 10 et 20 Victoria, oh. I04, les 
iinraient abolis et ^tgints, car ce statut autorise tout pro- 
briMaire a utiliser et exploiter tout <;ours d'eau qui borde, 
|longeou traverse sa propriete, et que le defendeur n'a 
rien I'ait^e plus. 

Que I'acte seigneurial de 1854 avait aboli et eteint tqut 
privilege de banality dans le genre de celui reclame par 
les demandeurs ; qu'une compensation raisonilabie pour 
|lous droits lucratifs ix)ssed§s par les seigneurs leur avait ete 
accordee, et qu'en consequence tons tels droits avaient etc 
ibolis absolument ; qu'un cadastre avait ete prepare pour 
la seigneurie de St. Hyacinthe/et que tous les droits pos- 
ked§s par le seigng.tir a I'exception de la rente seigneuriale 
Waient 6te abolis, el que nommement les seigneurs de St. 
'lyacinthe avaient re9U une compensation pour tous tels 
Iroits qui virtuellement avaient et6 entierement abolis. 

Les r6ix)nse8.ne contienneut aucun fait nouveau. 

Lelerf6vrier 1881 la Cour Superieiire siegeant a St. 
lyaAjinthe et presid6e par I'honorable juge Sicotte, a rendu' 
fejugement suivant: — 

"La Cour, apres avoir entendu les parties, examine la 
^)roti6dure et la prenve : , 

Consid^rant en fait que les demandeurs sont les h6ri- 
liers et representants de feu le jug* Dominique Mondelet 
H de Marie Delorme, et que ces derniers 6taient seigneurs 
pt propri6taire8 des seigneuries d68ignee8 dans led 6cri- 



1812. 

Homtolet 

et 

R07' 



J • ^fr-pfir fi^^' i m^ ■'• ^.j''f:f'jswi-^^;nf.'^ww^ 



n >/ 



tf^j*wYVT^m/^m^y^ 



Mondalet 

et 

Roy. 



:: j: 



i- ,1 



fib:: 



14 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 




tares, ainsi qxxe. des droits seigneuriaux d^coulant de la | 
tenure seigneuriale, et eu possession k titre de seigneurs 
des moulins indiqu^s dans les ecritures et dans les actes 
qui y sont relates ; 

" Gonsid^rant qu'il est (constant que la seignenriu 
Debartzch aet6 acquise pt^M. le juge Mondelet avec et 
sous la condition que Therralgealors poss6d6 par le nomm6 
St|mpson etait excepte de la vtinte, et qu'il 6tait tenu et j 
po8^d6 en franc aleu roturier ; 

" GoJtslderant qu'il est aussi constant que cet heritage 
-est le m£me que celui vendu par lesh6rif en 1867 et main- 
tenant poss6a<&. par le d6fendeur qui a fait en icelui le 
moulin dont la (l^&ngiolition est demaifd^e ; ,^^ ' 

" Gonsid^rant que Ift^ fait d6nonc6 k Tacqufereur et k I'au- 
teur des demand«urs, de la tenure en franc aleu roturier de 
I'h^ritage en question est exclusif de toute cession de droit 
de servitude quelconque par ces vendeurs contre cet heri- 
tage comme il constate sa liberation de toute servitude de | 
la nature de celle r^clamee ; >' ♦ 

"Gonsiderant que les conventions faites paries aateurs 
des demandeurs, invoqueespar ces derniers n'ont 6t6 faites 
que dans le but d'emp6cher competition entre les premiers 
quant a I'exploitation par eux de leur banality, et que par | 
la nature de ces stipulations, aucune servitude ne fut con- 
stitute, mais qu'il y eut simplement des conventions et 
des declarations d'un caractere purement personnel et 
individuel : - S 

" Gonsiderant que I'heritage du d6fendeur ne doit aucune 
servitude pour I'utilite d'un heritage appartenant aux 
demandeurs; 

" Gonsiderant qu« le droit d'imposer des restricticftis et 
des prohibitions generales, contre I'usage des eaux des I 
rivieres, dans les limites de leurs seigneuries, n'apparte- 1 
nait i^ux auteurs des demandeurs qu'en autant et parce 
qu'ils <|taient seigneurs et proprietaires du droit de bana- 
lite, tel que r6gl6 par la loi alors en force, concemant la 1 
tenure des terres dans les seiguenries ; 

" Gonsiderant que la tenure seigneuriale et tons les 
droits qui en decoulent ont ete abolis par Facte seigueu- 



j^^^fm; 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



l~ 



Hal de 1864 et que lea auteurs des demai^jJetors ont r6clam6 
bt re^u rindemnit6 accord6e ponr tons les droits qu'ils 
berdaient par I'abolition de la tenure seigneuriale, et 
'aominativement pour la perte resultant de I'abolition 
in droit de banality et des privileges exclusifs quant a 
rexploitation des eaux ; 

Consid^rant que vu cette abolition et cette indemnity, 
les demandeurs comme h6ritiers et repi^entants des sei- 
kneurs en question sont sans droit pour r(§clamer lad6mo- 
lition du monlin k farine construit par le d6fendettr ; 
I "Con8id6rant que les demandeurs sont mal fond^s dans 
leur demande^^t que le d61endeur a ju8tifi6 ses defenses, 
Heboute Vfftmj^, avec dfepens distraits^ aux avocats du 
'i6fendeff^,'r^- ^ / 

W^*^^"^ ' i -. - 

Mercief, i03t, pour les appelants : — 

lo. L'acte du 2 mai 1860 a cree sur I'immeuble du 
i6fendeur une servitude r6elle appel6e en droit " servitude 
|io» etdijicandi." 

Lirticle 499 de notre code civil d6finit la servitude :— 
I' Une charge imposfee sur un heritage pour l\ttilit6 d'un 
lutre heritage appartenant a un propri6taire different " et 
I'artide 548, $ 2, dit que les " sei^vitudes non apparentes" 
l6nt celles qui n'ont pas de signes ext6rieurs, comme, par 
liemple, "la prohibition de batir" sur un fonds. 
I La prohibition de bfttir un moulin a farine stipulee dans 
racte du, 2 mai 1860 contient les caracteres constitutifs 
I'une telle servitude. 

Demolonjbe, Servitudes, No. 681. 

TouUier, T. 3, p. 242, N0..382. : 

Daviel, Cours d'eau,T. 2, No. 607. i 

Cass, 7 f3§v. 1825 (D. 1825, 1, 84.) 

Dorum if Bivet, 1 L/ C R.,^ 257. • 1 

Minor ^Gttmour,^L.C.n.,lU. L 

HamUton ^ Wall, 24 L. C. J., 49. 

II n'est pas hfi^jfessaire que l'acte constitutif de la servi 
ide mentionne Thgritage dominant. II suffit que I'exis- 
bnce de cet h6ritage soit certaihe A I'fipoque du contrat et 
lue la servitude stipul6e sur rh6ritage sertint lui procure 



1888. 

Mondelet 

et 

Roy. 



X 



■ K 

' ''} ■ 



16 




MONTREAL LAW REPOfttS. 



*T /' 



Ulil. 

llondel«t 

et 

Roy. 








M 



an avantage d'an caraqtdre certain et permanent. Pardes- 
8118, Servitudes, T. 1, p, 82., 

II setnble que ce8 aatorjft^s jastifient les appelants 4 
coucli>^e que la prohibitioh contenue daiis I'acte dij 2 
mai 1'850 ne constitue pa» settlement une obligation per- 
sonnelfe de la part de I'acqitereur de ne point Mtir, mais 
une \4ritafele servitude r6el 

iJette servitude n'a pas\6t6 purgge par le d6cret qui 
faifc^ I'immeuble en 18(37. 
^nJ^; ch. 86, s. 21: 
iiJC., art. 7:09. 

bre ^ Goddin, ft L. C. J. 
, ^'existence de cette servitude est ind^pendante du 
droitli de\ banalite, et n'a pas 6t6\affect6e par I'acte sei- 
gnewvWd* 1854. Cet acte, qui d^r6ta la d6cheance des 
droiVseigneuriaux, n'a pas affect6 les droits cr^es par des 
" conventions faites entre un vend&ur et un acheteur 
quand m(&me le premier aurait 6t6 seigrieur" 4 I'^poqne de 
cette convention. S. R. B. C, ch. 41, ppl 406 eit 407. 
Decisions des Tribunaux, Quest. Seign.,VVol A., p. 305 a 
L'abolition consacr^e par le statut est uni<|^em6nt celle 
des droits f(&odaux attribu^s aux seigneuryes "/par les lois 
civiles de la France." Le I6gislateur n!&'paslvo^lu dSpouil- 
ler les propri^tfiires de droits acquis en vertu de contrats 
librement consentis. II ne devait ni ne pouvait le faire, 
comme le dit Chabot dans ses Questions Tramitoires, (T. 3, 
p. 244.) 

Lfiooste, C.R., pour I'intime : — 

La stipulatipn de ne pas b&tir all^guee dans le partage i 
du 23 septembre 1811. a ete toute personnelle entre les 
parties a I'acte, et dans lebut unique de proteger leur 
droit de banalite qui existait alors. Les parties ont pris 
la peine de specifier qu'elles ne b&tiraient aucun moulina 
farine ou a scie jMmr leur comple particttiier, et n'ont jamais 
entendu creer par la une servitude sur tpu« les terirainBl 
entourant ces moulins. 

L'article 499 du code dit : " La servitude r6elle est une I 
charge impos^e sur un heritage en faveur d'un autre h6ri- 



•-^y- ■ 





anent. Pardes- 



ar le d6cret qui 



e le terrain 
ieur) est tenu 

de droit de 
6e. 

pSt I'acte 



>n 



iriale 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH./ "f j^ 

lage api)artenant 4 unproprifetairediffi&reht." banii lecas 
Muel aacune charge h'a 6t6 impo«6e su/ nn h^tagequel 
[onque pour I'utilit^ d'un autre h6ritag(' 
■ M6me si une servitude reelle avait 6/6 vr^ee par V^-te 
e 1811, elle serait 6teinte depuis longtimps. f Dans I'aiite 
lo vente du 6 novembre 1854 il est declar6 
bo886d6 par Stimp^n (qui est celui di/dfefen^ 
In franc aleurotuner, oe quiexclut toute cess 
lervitude de la nature de celie qui e/t r^la 

En outre, I'abolition de 1^ tenure seigneliaie par i acte 
le 1864. qui a aussr.aboli tpus les droits ie banalit6 que 
l»o886daient le^^ seigneurs avant ce temps, imis fin k cette 
lervitude si elle a jamais exipt6. Les s^gneurs ont 6t6 
luement mdemnisfis pour toutes les pftes causfees par 
Jabolition de ces droits, et les demaifdeurs ou leurs 
Ititeurs ont re9u le montant de la compensation qui Ieur a 
It6 accord6e pour la perte de ce droit de/banalit6 
L'acte du 2 mai 1850 n'a pas non plis ^re6 une servi- 
ade. X)n ne pent pas trouver dans U termes de cette 
invention la constitution d'une servittde sur un heritage 
nfaveurdun autre heritage, et I'ofcation a 6t6 to^e 
ersonnelle. / " 

M6me en swpppsant que cet acte ^t cree un servitude. 

lie Serait 6teinte comme celle de VaAe de 1811 aux termed 

■e 1 acte du 6 mars 1854 d6jtk citfes./ 
Ces deux servitudes, si elles «(vaient jamais exi^6 
raient encore purg6es par le dec/et du 15 novembre 1867 

I par la possession par bons titris de l'intim6 et de ses 

iteurs pendant au-dela de 10 anli 

it fT]l "' ^' ^^'*^"* ^^ *^^ Propri6taireii rive- 



1882. 

' Mondelet 

et 

Hoy. 



r 



J \ I '■ 



me. Mane Charlotte Mondelet kne. Jules £ambtl,e) 






^1 



.-'it^ 



y 



^^*^^^^^:^^l% 



' fef ^ 



un. 

Uondclat 

•t 

Roy. 






18 



MONtREAL LAW REPORTB. 



to his minor children by his late wife Mme. Emilie E. 
Mdiidel^t ; (4) Mr.>/md Mrs. Audy as joint tutors of the 
minor children of the late Jean Frederic Gaudet and his 
late wife Mme. Marie C^cile Mondelet. These parties 
represent the late Mr. Justice Mondelet, idso Olivier Morin 
the elder and Olivier Morin the younger, who hold under 
a deed from the late Mr. Justice Laframhoise and his wife. 

.The action 8 brought to cause the defendant now 
respondent, to demolish a grist mill near the village ofUIlTj "^ 
St. Pie. V"* \ Bthevn 

The titles invoked by plaintiffs in support of their 
demand go back to 1811, vfhen it appears that the wleun\ 
of the fir6t named plaintiffs find ^he duteurs of the Miessrs, 
Morin were proprietors in possession par intUms of the 
whole seigniory of St. Hyacintho.^ They were Mr. Marie 
Delorme and Mr. Pierre Dominique Debartzch. 

On the 28r(l September, 1811, these gentlemen made a| 
portage of the greater portion of their seigniory, all in fact, 
but two pieces of land with grist mills erected upon theii 
—one at St. Hyacinthe and the other at St. Pie. , By ti 
portage Mr. Delorme got five-eighths of the seigniory an( 
Mr. Debartzch got the other three-eighths, and their si 
in these mills and mill sites were to be in the same pn 
portion. 

By this division of the domain of the seigniory the righl 
of bantUiti, including the right to prevent the constructio 
of other competing mills, ceased to be a protection to thi 
mills at St. Hyacinthe and St. Pie, in so far as concem< 
the action of the owners of the divided seigniory. Oon- 
liequently Mr. Delorme and Mr. Debartzch stipulated " d( 
ne b&tir aucnn moulin k fariue ou k scie i>our leur compi 
particniier k une lieue k larondedesdits moulins k farini 
mais au-del4 d*une lieue de distance, k compter des dil 
moulins k farine ci-dessus mentionn^s, chaouihe des dite , gngj*'^ 
parties pourra bfttir poxa son compte priv6 et particolie fidentl 
tel moulin k farine ou a scie que bon lui semblera daii jf^f^^ j^ f 
r^tendue de terrain k cha<rune respectivement 6chue pa mtr -«., 
ces pr^sentes, sans qu'iftucune puiiSse, pr^tendre droit <!< le M ' ^ 
b&tir sur la partie 6chu€ k Tantre aucnn m6nlin k farin elonirin tt 



In pn 
ou Mme 
Mr. Deb 

Mr. ai 
sold to.,! 
one Jose 
and wat( 
mills, be] 



the Blaci 

the limitf 

or grist n 

Ishall be ji 

'steam or ; 

nder a ti 

Afkerwi 

rs. Drui 

luteur of t] 

ipecial tra 

vidson 

following 

ente, le j 

>ranche si 

iomm§ Sti 

yants droi 

t les vend 

environ t 

t sera expl 

a'iiraag 

It appear 

id Macka^ 

The deed 



k 0Tl'&6Cie."- 



/• 



"^^1%".^^^^' 



.^|£e-^^^ ■^-"^rj^'i^psr - 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 

me. Emilie E ■ t ' <. 

tutors of the|„,;jrjrT''f u"^ *'*""^**** ^*' ^' Delorme devolved 
kudet and hisl;^',^" j^*^^'"***^'^^ *°d her hu«band. and the rights of 
These partiesl^^^M/t Ji^M Z ^'' ^^"°»™o«d and her husband. 
> Olivier Morinl J'. "*i?^n "^2""''"^ ***'"• "^^^'^^ 2nd May. mO, 
ho hold unde J 1^^;?,*^^^ ^•^^»*9» ^^ Robert Mackay. trus ees of 
.eandhiswifeiri^ff ^^*««'«f*»i» '•«al estate consisting of 1 J 
efendant no^0.^f*r P«^«l^«^ ««w ™i" situated near the St. Pie 

the village o|"^^^^"T"*J^l**'''' ^«^«^™« and Debartzch^ ^ 
■dready mentioned w,^ the express stipulation that neith^ 

he Blaclc or Sauth.Wnch of the Yamaska River wTthin 
the hmits o the seigniory of St. Hyacinthe. any flouTmil 
or grist mill, or any other mill where gra n of any^nd' 
shall be ground whether the same be driven bTwaer 

tnZ "♦T; -^'' r""*' P°^«'" The defenda^tl^d^ 
bnder a title denved from Davidson and Macl|.y , 

Afterwards, namely, on the 6th March. ISHMr and 
[rs. Drummond sold their seigniory to Jildim \I^a w 
t/e«r of the first Rv. r.Ui^.;J' 1. T^^ Mondelet, 



jport of their 
hat the (iiUeun\ 
of the Miessrs, 
indivis of the 
ere Mr. Marie 
ch. 

lemen made al 
ory, all in fact, 



tednpontheir""'™"™" "»'<''*«!' »ei«mi.ry to Judge Moaddel, 



Pie. , By ti 
seigniory an( 
id their si 
the same pn 



... •'! i 1. „ *^ "*"""" "»™ea. out tftere was no 

^»lt™„rf,r„f^5,Hght, .ri,mg „„t of a^iZZ 
feTldwn ,„d JUckay, «»!««,« cm b. drawn (,Ztt 
ollowiag clan»e;-"Ert encore except* de 1. ^^1 
Ut. le ponvoir dV.« et terr«a en d6pei.d«,t ™ it 
|™che^eud do la dite rivWre *«»«*" ve^Vi nn 
omm* a.mp..n. qni ort po«M6 p„ ce dernier „« ,e^, 
.teotion to tli.T"'^" ^fi'-^f-ro^ en vertn dWe. ent« Z 

It appears that this is the *ame land sild toWdson 
apterdesditr'^"fj^yj"V?V'.*^**^^y- ' - . ^'^^V 

.uHe des dite ,]^!if,"^ ^^««?« *« J«?ge Mondelet further obliged him 
: et particulie ^^^ '^^ ''^^^ *^»* '^^ ^^orj was suh^t to 
^mblera daa ^"* ^ / clause sug^sted by the obligations of the 
ent 6chue pa SVl 7^5, l*?:??^"""^ ^^^ 
ndre droit d J5foi^\tn ' '?^K.f ' ?^ ^- I^fr«»l>oise «old to 

- ^. : . -^ ■ ^J^^fflPg to Mr. Delome. " suivant le partage de l&n » 



liory the righl 
e constructio 



gniory. Con- 
itipulated " d 
ir leur compi 
lulins k farini 




Mondelet 

et 

Bojr. 



P- 



20 



(pf>f5 < ^"■w^'^'^f^'^vii-^^'^Y ' ^i'lSr" ■■ *' "^ i'^f^'™*wf'^??!^^f?rf^" r^jff 



MONTREAL LAW REPORm 



1WV2. 

M0B<l<tltt 

et / 
Roy. 



I :: 



1 



>i ' .' 



:i 



■ , /■ 



■i. 



~ 1 



From all these deeds plaintiffs contend that by ti 
act of IKII a oouvuntional servitude was established ii 
favour of the properties of the Delorme and Debartzcl 
families ; that these rights have all passed into the hand 
of the plaintiffs, and that they constitute a present prohj 
bition to build a grist ^ill ; that at any rate the hei( 
Debartzch, ntiteun of the defendant, being obliged to suffij 
the servitudes of the seigniory sold to Judge Mondek 
auteur of some of plaintiffs, with an express warranty tl 
the defendant's proi>erty should be used by him as it ha 
always been, andihat, moreover, the defendant's land 
held liable to the servitude in express terms, or at; 
events by terms which imply the servitude. 

The defendant meets the action by saying : that thej 
never was a servitude even by the deed of 1811, that the! 
is certainly uo servitude by the deed of 1850, thatjf oithJ 
or both of these deeds created a servitude it was on 
which was swept away by the abolition of the seignior 
tenure in the autumn of 1854, and the seigniors W( 
indemnified foi: the loss ; and lastly that an ac^ also pass 
in 1864 gave the water power to the riparian proprietoj 

The case looks very intricate at first sight, but I thi 
it can be very easily decided by taking each deed sej 
rately and examining its effect. 

It seems to me that the deed of 18ll created a servili 
r4ciproque in favor of the domain of each share of 
divided seigniory of ^t. Hyftcinthe. That is, Mj. Delor 
created in favour of the mill property at St. Fie a sei 
' tnde on his share of the seigniory, and that Mr. Debarta 
created a similar servitude on his share. If this servitv 
was seijpiorial it was abolished by the Seigniorial Acil 
. 1854, whether it be considered as a principal right or 
' acjpessory of the right of banaliti, Qn. Seig. A. 85 a. Ifl 
be not seigniorial it was constituted in favour of a sei^ 
iory and it disappeared l^y the concession of the real est 
in favour of which it was created. I think, therefore, tl| 
the stipuliation in the act of 1811 has entirely disappea 
and consequently the -rights clfdmed by the Morins 
appeaE. 



■■■^ 



%f '•'»'[ i'T^^'^rmtww^ 



OOtRT OF QUERN'S BENCH. 



SI 



The repreaentativoB of Judge Mondelet have another 
1e. They say the defendant has agrewl by a special 
onvention of his deed of purchase that he will not build 
I grist mill, and we are in the rights of his auteur. 
The answer appears to me to be plain. It is either 
Pigniorial or it is not.' If it ho seigniorial, it has disap- 
earedas the stipulation in the deed of 1811. Ifitlni 
Dnventional, which, I am disposed to think it is, what is 
bo hMtage dminant ? There is none mentioned in the 
leed. It has been pretended that this might be supplied 
}y parol. I don't think this proposition tenable. It 
irould be to prove oulre le imUenu ties twleg. What the 
luthors say is that it is not necessary for the constitution 
If a servitude that it should be created by using the 
becial word, and thatthrfconstitution of a servitude may 
[o gathered from the general terms of the deed. And so 
ire held in the case of HamUlon t^ WalV But if such evi- 
lence were admissible, its oflect woult^be to convert the 
|eod, conventional and not seigniorial on its face.Muto a 
onvention iii support of a seigniorial right. 
I think, therefore, that the deed created only a personal 
bligation in favour of Mr. and Mrs. Drummond. There 
ben remains only the question whether they have trans- 
frred their rights to Mr. Justice Mondelet. As it has 
een said, the pretention that they haye is solely based on 
be clause of the deed of 1864, above quoted. The^ terms 
jlthat clause are certainly embarrassing. The words of 
V first part of the sentence seem only to contemplate the 
xcepting from the sale the piece of land now held by 
bspondent, but at the" end we have the odd assurance; 
Ut ma exploU4 par le dit Stimpsun ou ses uyants droits tel qu'U 
Y^t6jmqu'<i,^jourr Even if "these words apply to the 
Wen^de bdtir by the deed of 1850, which is not clear, we 
|on't think they are tramlatifs deproprim, or that «hey are 
*affieient to create a warranty on the par! of the Vendors. ^ 
will be observed that the deed of 1854 is ostemsibly the 
Je of a seigniory, and that all the words conveySg title . 
JBferJo the B0igniory. It can h^dly be presumed thaf a 
^ '24 1* C. J. 49. -; 



IML ' 

MondaUt 

•t 

Riiy. 




-i^.. 



^- - •' 'fW^ _ 



'.^if-^p"' 



MOJITREAL LAW RRPORTSr^ 




.1 Ruy 



J"' porRon of Mr. Jaitioe Bfondelet's great eiperienoe, eijieciJ 
Uo«^M ^,jy ^ ^ j^jj, ^gjj^jy lawyer, would have been Mtisfio^ 
with saoh words tm those tued if he had intended to jgwi 
a transfer of Mr. a;ul Mrfl. Drammond's rights urider the 
act -of 1880. Wo thoreforo think the jadgmnnt must l> 
oonftrmod. I may add that we have not thought it neceii 
sary to enter upon the question as to the special Act as tc 
tjie rights of riparia^ proprietors. 

t, Jug«Arient confirm^. 
Mercier, Beausoleit Sf Martineau jwur los appelants. 
Lacotte, Globmtkjf ^ Bisaillm pour rintim6. 
{E. L.) r- —'— 



Nov. 19, 1884. 

Coram DoRioN,' C. J., Monk, Rambay, TfessiSR, " 
and Prosb, JJ. '^ < . ' 

JOSEPH- SIPUNa . "^^, 

X {Ptaintiff in Court belouf)\ 

AppEliiMTr; 
AND 

THE HPAKHAM FIREPROOF ROOFING CO, 

(Defendant in Court bdow)\ 
RESPONDENt. 
Qui tarn action— 2^ Sf 2|b Vu:t., c^p. AZ— Affidavit. 

Held, that in the affidavit requirmi l^y 27 & 28 Vict, cap. 48, the cause < 
action must be indicated 8uffl( i^ntly to identify the action awom 
with that actually prosecuted i ^specified in tlie declaration. 

The judgment appealed from was rendered by the Suj 
^ rior Court, Montreal, Rainville, J. The following werJ 
the reasons of judgment 

" Gonsid^rant qu'aux termes du statut 2*1 Sc 28 Viot^ 
chap. 48, aucune action qui tarn ue pent dtre institute 
moins qu'il ne soit produit avec le fiat ou prcAcipe iin«| 



1 


f^'- i 

1 
1 


r ■ 


rX 




- r 






! 


f 

1 


* 


«. 










1 




V y 


^ 


^ 


'1 




'^ 






COURT or QUEEN'S BENCH, 



S8 



^position aMorment^ du ponnmivant d6oI«ruit, qn'en »«m. 
UtitoMit cette po^r8uit«, il u'agit imm collusoirement «••;'"• 
W le dftfendeur dana le but d'emp«oher toule autre per-*'»'3J^ 
Bnne d'inatjtujjr telle action, ou pour lui ocdksionner du °* 
l^lai, ou rompAcher de r^ussir, ou pour aauver dea fraia 
d6fend«ur, mais qu'il intente aon action, de bonne foi 
ni le but de recouvrer telle amende avec toute cfl6rit6 
saible ; / 

"OonHi'dArant que la oauso d'actlon doit apparaitre par 

I dtt affidavit et qu'avant d« permottre rfimisaion d'un 

In^our unetelle action le prothonotairo doit connaitre 

WiJBe d'iuelle afin de permettre k la Cour d'identifier la 

WiB d'action, qu'autrement il serai t impoaaibln de con- 

jtateWai le d6poHant a donn^ hou affidavit pour I'objet 

our laquelle Taction est prise, vu qu'un affidavit g6n6ral 

; wifl particnlariser la cause d'action permettrait au de- 

Ifindeur de poursuivrd pour "n'importe quelle cause 

■'action ; ' i - * 

Laintient la dite exception k la forme et renvoie. I'ac- 
[on avec d6pens distraits, etc." 
Cross, J. : — ' 

^he appeal in this case is from k judgment maintain- 
Bg an fexcep^Son a la forme to a Qui tarn penal action. 
J The Stati^e of Quebec, 27 & 28 Vic, cap. 48, pro- 
pded as follbws:' 

"Whereat it has happened that persons who have 
Ireudered/themsielves liable to prosecution in popular or 
1^1 torn ^ctions for penalties have, in order to frustrate 
lor delav such actions, or to save themselves from the 
payment of such penalties, or such part thereof as is by 
llaw assigned to the prosecutors in such ca|Ses, caused 
Isuch Actions to be instituted by friends of theirs, who 
Ihave /been in collusion with them for that purpose, 
Itherelbre Her Mig'esty by and with the advice and con- 
[sent, etc., enacts as follows : f 

" Henceforth no process of summons shall be issuable 
lor issued in any such actiou or prosecution unless there 
I be filed along with the praecipe or requisition for such 
I process an affidavit of such prosecutor declaring that in 



R«M>r 






.-""VJ'' 



• *i*n: 






24 



MO^fTRf AL LAW RRFORTR. 



IMU. 
lp«rhain Rnuf- J 



lii( I'll. 









"iio prom'cuting h«t in hot M^tiiiK in oolluflion with thoi 
''^l«<fimdftiu ill Rurh M^iou, nor do<w ho w proaeoutA for 
" tho purpos«< of pWventing mich mtiaii or proMicutioii [ 
" bt'ing inntituted by any othwr p«rnon, nor for th<< pur- 
" poMo of tI«<luyi«K it or'caaniriff it to niiH^^arry, nor for th.« 
"purpoH*' of Having Huch ^iilVndiint (rom th« paynumt oil 
*'th«' wlrolo or any part of *uch penalty, nor of proAiring 
" to him iiny advantag«*, but that h« iniititutuH Much pro- 
" HWHition or action in good faith, and for th« purpoHo of | 
" rwovoring, oxarting and «mforcing th« paynimit of Nunh 
" iwnalty with all practicable c«l«rity." 

The ftppellant produced- an affitlavit with hiH pnncipa an 
initiatory proc^oedingn, an<l an unual a declaration with 
th« return of the writ, in which he M««t forth the cause off 
iuHion. X * 

Tho alFKlavit containrtl iio reference to the preecipe nor I 
the prwcipe to the aifidavit, and neither contained tany 
special reference to the declaration, nor to the cause of a«-| 
tion therein contained. 

It 18 true that the aflidavit contained these words, '•ml 
the pre8ent action," but this exprcHsion did not connect it 
with any particular adtion not described in the atfidavit; 
moreover, at the time it was sworn to, and before being 
filed, no action could h|ive yet existed to which it could 
have referred. 

The prteciiMj asked for t|ft writ in a qui lam action fori 
♦269,100 penalties. The declaration concluded fot penal 
ties amounting to $262,900. ■* 

The Superior Court quashed the prosecntbr's proceed-l 
iugs, and dismissed his action on the ground that the! 
cause of action should have been stated in the affidavit,! 
^ that the court could identify the action sworn to orl 
ij^i^ted by the affidavit with tho one aotuilly prosefcutedj 
as specified in the declaraticm. ' . U .; v 

" . It is obvious that the principle of this judgment is cor-l 
rect,' at least, so far as identifying the action proeecatedl 
with the one referred to in the affidavit, and the efie<^ve 
means of doing so is to state briefly it may be the tilusel 
,of action! in the affidavit, otherwise it would be impoecd-f 



t- 




4^^ 



l^* 



COOKt 0? QOBBITH BKNOH. 



24-^^ U. 



fllpllMt 



bifl to Miy thmt th« proioontor hml iumIm afntlavit to thn 
immm ■ctioii whith ho »n.irwftrdii pnn^Tut*^!, and nuch -^"- 
a gimAralalfidavit wt hn had inad«> in thia c^uso would '^'*['"'t#'"''' 
»ll6w hiln an«rward« io i)roM<><!uto for tuiy i^gttio^ of »c- "* 
Hon, Although th« provlaion of (h»« iitiitut*^ t!pnwrnlng 
tho ioatt4»r IN inado in th.- public iutonwt, it Im o|.,Hr that 
cornpliam« thornwith iwjogardH tho poiut how und.«r 
< onaideration ia ma<l« aTiondition priHinh.ut ti tho valid 
iNfluo of a writ in auch actiona. In thia <<aMit thwro ia not 
only a failure to «'HtabliHh an id«'ntity Ih'Iwimui th« ai-tion 

.ontomplatml by th.- affidavit and th.» ono proiecuted, but - ^ 

proauining that tho pniM^iiMi nH|uircHlth« writ for th«» - 

former, there is proof that H ia not tho aanio aa th.- one ^ 

proHe<iuted. be<!aua» the JatW ia an a«!tion for pvnaltiea to 
the amount of ♦•2r.2,900, aiul tho pni'cipu. aaka for a writ 
in an action for 1259,100. f 

ft ia not a «ulH«;ient argument for the proaerutor to aajr 
that the affidi^yit followH the language of the atatute, and 
iontaina the exact worda according to ita requiromenta, 
unleaa theae worda are apocifically appli«id to a particular 
action indicated by the affidavit, f f^e alfidftvit is iir gen- ' 
eral terms, and makoa no H|)e(!ial Allusion to any particular 
action. It is therefore inapplicable and insufficient, and 
the judgment which held it so must be confirmed. ^ ' 

• > '' Judgment confirmed. 

Archibald Sc McCormick for the Appellant. 

Babertson, RUchie Sf Fleet for the Reapondent. *^ j^ 

-^J. B. Oibb, oonnael. 

(J.K.) ^ — \_--r 



^ ' . 


- 




* ' I 




' 


'' 


""^ 




•» ■. > ■ 








"'■' J^ 






■ • ■' ■ 


---.-':-; --'-^-;"--- " - -, 


4- 


. - 




■ ■'■■n ' ::- 


-"■' ■ . '« 






7^- 


" 










'^ • • ••• 








»' 




•■ 


; 


I ■ ' - 


..'', -. ." ^ 


■■'"■' " ^ 


**&«.' 


a^_ 




■, .^^ ■ :::y 


. , . . . ,.•. .... ^ 
■ ■ r . 




' 


:^^.. 




- .''^ ■ ■ •.! ■ 




•^. 4 



)§■■':■,-■, r-' 



I. :^'.' 



' i> 



MONTRBAL LAW RBTORm j » 

Nov. 19, 1884. 

GTram DoRioN, C. J., Monk, Bamsat, Teghibr, 
andOBOSS, JJ. 

* WAI/TERREED, 

{Plaintiff U the Qmrtheikno), • 

■ : -. ■■; •' "■ - ■'-'"' ^' ':•■ 1 Appellant; 

■ AND 

~^ THE SPARHAM FIRE-PROOF ROOFING 00., 
V ' (Defendant in the Cowrt hdow)i 

■- ,\: -i/ :':'..._. '^^v :■■■..- ■ ■ Respondent./'^' 

, -■ \ •■ ::-;"-^ .■■ -^ ■■;...:,■ -^'X: ■■;; • ..;. ., ;. . . 

Qui tarn actionr-2l Sf 28 Via:, cap. 4&—AffidavU. 

Held, tlAt a leferenoe in the affidavit reqnired by 27 4b 28 Vict, cap. 
43, to the action mentioned in the Pnedpe " herewith filed," is not a 
., anlBcient identifioition of the action sworn to with that actaally pio- 
aecnted as apecifled in the declaration. 

. .Oeoss, J, :^^ -.-'.''■ v' ■;-■;.. i:/-: ■■.,' '-y- 

This action was similar to that of S^pUngy. Tke 
Sparhm Fire-Proof Roofing Co. m being a ^Kt tarn action 
for a penalty. The affidavit was slightly different in 
that it referred to the action mentioned in the Praecipe 
herewith filed. This was an improper form of expression 
becaufife when the affidavit was made neither it nor the 
pi^cipe conld have been filed. It "Wovld. have been in 
order to have declared in the praecipe that the affidavit 
was therewith filed. Nevertheless there was^in theaffi«^ 
davit in this case a semblance at least of the identifica- 
tion with it of a penal action intended to be prosecuted. 
I would l|^e been much disposed to hold the affidavit 
tiufficient to answer the requirements of the Statute save 
that a stricter rule has already been laid, down and a pre- 
cedent established in a case decided by Mr. Justice Monk 
in 186T, Oagnon v. 8t. Dems, 12 L. 0. X, p. 2Y9, which the 
Court are disposed to follow. It is founded ou English 
decisions in cases bearing a resemblance to the two now 



.^ 



OOtJRT OF QUEEITS BENCH. 






I1P0NDENT. 



would be stopped 
and therefore it is 
blishing anything 
appellant says th 
Statute, and that 
than "the Statute 
although the affii 



in question, and adopts aVule advantageous to the Me- mm. 
fendant in that it gives hii^^ndtice, on the responsibility Y" 
of what the prosecutor is willing.to sWear to, of the nature ^"^Sj^o^""'- 
of the charge brought against him. This Court has come 
to the conclusion to confirm the judgment in this case 
also, and that on the ground stated by the learned judge 
who rendered the judgment in the Court below. 

Rambat, X:— 

These two cases must have t|ie saine fate. They stand 

on the same principle. They arer both actions qui tarn. 

The statute {21 & 28 Vict., c. 48) requires as a condition 

precedent to the issue of any stibh action that there shall 

be an affidavit of the prosecutor declaring that^n thus 

prosecuting " he is not acting in collusion with thedefen- 

•• dant, nor does Jie so prosecute for the purpose of pre^ 

II venting ^ucb action or prosecution being instituted by 

" any other person, nor for ^he purpose of delaying it, or 

" <wwing it to mmartyimi^ the purpose of saving such 

" defendant from the payment of the whole or any part ' * 

•• of such penalty, nor of procuring to him any advantage, 

"but that he institutes ^uch prosecution or action in 

" good fiiithi and for the |>urpose of recovering, exacting 

" and enforcing the payment of such penalty with aU -> 

" practicable celerity." . *v 

The affidavits filed in ihese cases refer to the actions 
as then existing When |the affidavit was made and 
identify them in nb oth^r way. Now the test is, could 
you assign perjury) on these affidavits ? Evidently you 
ii th^ threshold by lack of identity, 
ideii|t that there is no affidavit esta« 
A all with regard to either action. The 
; his Affidavit is in the words of the 
le should not be obliged to say more 
requiies. This is self-evident ; but 
Hi^patsues formally the words of the 
Statute it does nbtj set forth aU that the Statute requires, 
for It does not shW its connection with "such action" ' 
Thejndge in the Pourt below did not say it was neces- 




t&^-*im'-ismm^-:^ 



'iji*\^.. '»^,»> ..M^ rii</fi S'f'M^^ 



N 



i! ■ I 



I ;■)! 



/ >i 



28 



'^'' 



MONTREAi: LAW 'RI PORm 



Reed 
A 




sary to give a copy of the declaration, but that the afi- 
^"■jSj'oJ!^'' davit should show the cause of ^action sufficiently to 
identify it. . 

Of cours^t is easy to' cry out against technicalities, 
but there are technicalities which are very important, and 
this is one. The defendant has a: great interest in seeing 
that the suit he is defending is rightly brought because it 
is only an action brought with a proper affidavit that is a 
bar to another suit. 

V * ■A" 

DoRiON, C. J. : — ij ;, / 

There is no doubt that the judgment appealed from has 
pointed out the course which should be followed in every 
case of this nature, that is to say; the substance of the 
allegations should be pontained in the affidavit itself. 
There must be a complete identification of the cause of 
action, so that a party may be prosecuted for swearing 
falsely. . ' "" ^ 

Archibald 8c McCormick for the Appellant. 

Robertson, Ritchie 8f Fleet, for the Respondent. 

J. R. GHbb, counsel. * 



' January 25, 1884. 

Coram Dorion, G. J., Monk; Ramsay, Gross, 

and Baby, JJ. >ir ' 



> 



TANSBY^ 

AND 

BETHUNE ET AL., 
Costs — Privilege. 



/ 




Appellant ; 



ESPONDBNTS. 



M '•■)'•. 



Hdi, tbst where a defendant, in an action of da^oages which has been' 
dismissed with coBta, caiunS|HI imnioveabWiietongiing to the j^laintiff 
to be seiied and sold by thd%Briff, he i^^Utled to be odlocatod by 
privilege for such ooatB, on the prooeet|8 of the sale. 



• / 
:4 






PONDKNTS. 



COURT OF QUEEN'8 BENCH. 



29 



\\ 



Th^8 was an appeal from a judgment of the Superior 

Court here (Jette, J.), rendered on the elCh. October. 1882, 

maintaining the collocation in favor of^respondents for the 

sum of 1164.40 for costs in the report of collocation and 

. distribution prepared by the Prothonotary, of the proceeds 

of the sale by the Sheriff of this district of the real pro 

perty belonging to Bernard Emerson, in the writ ©^appeal 

in this cause mentioned, and dismissing the contestatioh 
of appellant. 

By. judgment of the Superior Court here, rendered on 
29th November, 1881, an action of damages brought by ■. 
said Bernard Emerson, against Adam Darling, Samuel 
Coulson and others, was dismissed with costs, distraction 
of which was thereby awarded to the respondents, th^ 
attorneys of record of said defendants, Adanj Darling ^nd 
Samuel Coulson, and which costs were subsequently taxed 
at the sum of $154.40. . 

Subsequently, respondents, as the plaintiffs ^r distrac- 
lion He fr%^ issued execution against the goods and 
chattels, lands and tenements of said Bernard Emerson for 
the amount of their said costs, and caused the goods and 
chattels in his house to be seized ; but the sale thereof was 
stopped by oppositions filed by his wife and her sister, 
claiming the ownership thereof. ''. 

Thereupon respondents caused a certain lot of land and 
premises belonging to said Bernard Emerson, No. 718 
St. Lawrence Ward, of this city, to \k seized under said 
writ, but the sfile thereof was opi)osed by said Bernard 
Emerson, on the ground of alleged irregularities in the 
seizure. The opposition of Bernard Emerson \^as contested, 
and on the 19th April, 1882, was dismissed wjth costs! 
which were taxed at the sum of $86.25. A writ of vvndi- ■ 
timd eagxmas was thereupon issued, ordering the sheriff to 
ittoce^ with the sale of said lot of land and premises, and 
on the 23rd May last (1882) the said lot of land SiA pre- 
mises were sold to said appellant for the sum of |foO <the 
assessed value of the property being ♦2,000'a8 appears by 
the account ffled by the city, p%>er 2 of the record). 

On the 19th June, 1882, a report of collfto«t«ni» ^^a a;.. 



1884. 

Taniiey 

Bethune. 



V 



.:• i-f; 



n 



y ^■fiS!^ ^n^i 



% ,- 



80 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



18M. 

Tanner 

Betbanq. 



s- > 



\ 



tribution of the proceeds of sale (f 600.40, afleir deduction 
of the sheriff's fees and disbursemunts) was prepar§d by 
the Prothonotary and posted. 

By this judgment respoiMents were collocated, 1st, for 
the sum of |10 for prosecuting to judgment said report ; 
2nd, for $6.80 costs of execution ; 8rd, for $85.25 costs, 
taxed on judgment of 19th April, 1882, dismissing the 
opposition afin itannuler of said B., Emerson ; and 4.th, for 
$154.40, amount of their costs taxed on judgment of ^9th 
November, 1881, which dismissed the said action of said 
Bernard Emerson, with costs distrails to re^wndents, \he 
attorneys of Adam Darling and Samuel Gon^pen, defen- 
dants in said i|uit. ° " a 

After some further collopations, including one in &vor 
of thi City of Mojitreal ifor taxes, the appellant was ooUo- 
cated for the balance, in part payment of a sum of $1200, 
amount appearing to be due him by the Registrar's certi- 
ficate under im obligation from Bernard Emerson to him,^ 
of I'Tth May, 1880, by which said lot of land was hypo- 
thecated. 

On the 26th June, appellant cpntested the 5th item of 
said report, being the collocation "in favor of respondents 
for $154.40 foii their said costs of suit, but did not contest 
the other collocations in their favor. i^j 

The founds o^ appellant's contestation were that b^ 
law, and specially by Article 606 of the Code of Ciyil Pio- 
cedure, the costs of judgment in f^vor of a defendant \eid ' 
of a defendant's attorney have no privilege against, and do 
nofrank before, a hypothecary claim existing against the, 
immoveable sold, inasmtich as by said Article 606 only a " 
plaintiff's costs of suit rank before such hypothecary, 

claim. -T--— --— -- ^__ -] • 

That appellant i^as & creditor of said B. Emerson fi>r' 
$l,200'under a dagd of obligation, ^ecuted on the Itth 
May, 1880, and d^ly registered on the 1st JuAe, 1880, by 
whieh said lot of land was hypothecated in favor of appel* ^ 
lant, and that under said report (^distribntiQn'he has been 
only collocated for part of said 9nm. 
That, moreover, the original suit in thiis cause was/n^t 
■ ' _ J* T^ T 



» > 






tet deduction 
prepar§d by^ 

;ated, Ist, for 

said report ; 

135.25 costs, 

smissing the 

and 4.th, for 

n$nt 6f^9th 

ctioh of said 

tondents, ^he 

ilsen. defen- 



one in ({ivor 
it was ooUor 
im of 11200, 
istrar's certi- 
rson to him, 
I was hypo- 

5th item of 
respondents 
not contest 

ere that by 
ofCiyilPijo-^ 
Pendant ,aAd 
unst, and do 
against thei 
606 only a-" 
lypothecaty , 

Smerson fi>r* 
•n the Itth 
e, 1880, by 
'orofappel* ^ 
he has been 





ft" 



COURT OF QUEENS BENCH. 



81 



ilistituted nntn loiig after thd registration of contestant's 

said hypothec. • " ^"'^ 

That, furthermore, the privilege granted expressly by 

|> law to the plaintiff's costs of suit cannot be extended to 

" the defendant's costs of judgment, in the absence of an 

express provision of law to that effec^. 



UM. 

TkDMy 

BethfiM. 



The contestant had a right t6 have the said fifth iten^ 



struck ortt of the said report^ and the said report reformer 
so that he might be himself collocated for thp amount of 
said item: ' • ° 

The respondents thereupon inscribed said cause for 
hearing ^n said contestation, and on the 6th October last, 

.the cont^ation was dismissed with costs, and the collo^ 
cation in favor of respondents maintained. • 

The judgment was as follows :— \« 

" La Cour aprds avoir entdndu les parties, savj^ir, le con- 
testant Tansey et messieurs Bethune & Bethune, cr6an- 
ciers par distraction colloquys pour leurs frais par* le projet 
d'ordre de distribution pr6par6 encettfe cause, fiur le m6rite 
de la contestation par Tinsey, de la dite collocation, pris 
connaissance des 6critures des dites parties pour I'instruc- 
tion de leur cause et des pieces an dossier et sur le tout 
d6Hb6r6; 

" &^sid6rant que le contestant Tansey, cr6ancier hypo- 
thfcaire du demandeur, s'objecte ila collocation des dits 
maitres Bethttoe & Bethune, disant, qu'ils n'ont droit 4 
aucun privU%e pour les frais par eux r6clam6s, attpndu 
que ce ne sont que des frais de d6fense, et que l'article.606 
du Code dp ProcMufe Civile n'accorde tel privilege que 
pour les frais de poursuite du demandeur da^ Faction ; 

*• Considferant que le privilege pour les frais de justice 
n'est pas 6tabli par I'article du Code de« Procedure CiviW 
invoqttfe, mais bien'par les ,1,994 et 2,009 du Code Civil, 
qui ne oomporWt ancune restriction tel|e que cdle aU6^ 
gn^ par le contestant ; * ^ > v i 

"Coneid^rant qn'en droit ce privilege s'^tend & tontes 
' - avMioes et d^peiises faites^^par qui qu^ ce soit, dans 



15. 



I'interftt common des crfianciers, et k cellos ayaat pour 
se was not ■ rfesultat a'araiyer A la rfealisatien du |tage et A 1> HiirtirKi.. 




\W' 



■^tT,-^-^B^(w^^^^f^w^ fe'ic^i^!pi«Bt!:;'flr^'f5F"p*iJ 



82 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



''■■. I 



t i 



18M. 

Taiuay 

A 
B«tbunc. 



^ 



tion da prix ponr Tavantage do tons ; 

" CouHid6rant en outre quo IVtiole 606 du codt^de pro- 
ci'iduro civile, surtout tel qu'amond6 par le statnt h& Vic-, 
toria, chapitro 17, article, 2, h'a pour offet .qufe de Mgler 
I'ordre de collocation dos frais de justice entrp eui, ei ne 
' sauruit 6tre interpretede maniere k rostxeindre leprivil^e 
accords pour Ics fraitt par les articles pr6cit68 du code 
civil;. ■ \ *■■ ■ ' '.' '.: • ■ V 

"' Consid^rant on consequence que le d6fendeur qui, par 
ses procedures dans I'espece, a procur6 la realisation du 
^age commun des «r6anciers du demandeur, rie ttanrait 
dans les circoitstance*^ dtre pr4V6 du privilege sus-men- 
.tionn6; ■....■ ., '-■ * ' ■'" ' ,., , - 

" Renvoie la contestation du dit Tansey e* maintient la 
collocation an projet d'ordre de distribution en favour des 
dits maitres Bothane & Bethune jpour leurs frais comme 
sus-dit ; .et condamne le dit contestant Tansey aux frais 
de la dite contestation distraits aux \naitres Bethune & 
Bethune.". v 

V Ramsay, J. (dissentiens) ; — ^ ' - » 

This is an appeal froni a judgment dismissing a con- 
testation of the colloca^on. of tidvocates for their pbsts^as I 
distrayants in a suit a^inst the owner 6f property hy jx)- 
. thecated in favojr of appellant. 

One Emepson was the owner of the property hypothec- 1 
ated. He brought an action against Darling and others ; 
defendants appeared separately and pleaded -sepatately. I 
The defendants were successfnl, and there was judgment 
dismissing the action witli cbsts distraits to the respon- 
dents, the attorneys of two of the defendants. They took 
execution and seized the l^nd hypothecated, and onrthe 
proceeds of the sale they were collocated for thei^/cbsiB in 
Emerson and Darling et al^ as being part of the] ycostef 
necessary to bring the ref^ estate to salie. AppellaiiC the 
hypothecary creditor, contested this collocation on the 
ground thai respondents had no privilege^for their bill ol | 
costs in the suit of Emerson v. Darling et al. ^y the^dg- 
ment of the Superior Court this contestation was reject 
^aud the hypothecary creditor appealed. It is not denied | 



• ^\ 



,> . 




COURT OP QUERN'S BENCH. 



88 



that under the old law in France, there was no privilege m ' 

for the costs of the action, There was only privilege for "^r 

ihe firms txxtraoMnairiss des crimes and in favor of the hypo- b*""""*-* 

Ihecary creditor— the frais oreUnaires were paid by the * 

hi/udicqUtt're, 1 Pigeau, 810. But a specious argument has ^ * 

eeu put forward. It is said that thi», was because the 
bypothecary creditor corfd seize without an action, and 
therefore he gained notWngby the suit; that hfeife it is 
perent, that he gains by the suit all the expenses he . 

Vould have to pay to get a judgment and sell. This might • ' | 
^ a reason for altering the law ; an^ in certain cirdum- 
fctances, and with somef limitations, perhaps the old law : 

higbt be changed with advantage, but I don't thin^that 
In a njatter of this kind it is competent' for the C<jtet to 
Ireate a privilege of this sort or to extend any that may 
fenst beyond the precise words of the law. It is, how- 
bver, contended that, independently of all legislation, there (f 

Ihould be a privilege here for the co^ts of the seizing ere- ' 
pitor, whoever he n^ay be, becaus^ere is no tUrtpari iw 
Ihis country, and thifthe equitable reason is so strong 
Ihat It justifies fh9 courts in creating a privilege. 
\ In -the case of m Eastern Township Bank Sf Pacaud this 

Mrine was maintained before the Code, 1 L. C. R. p. 126 
It is however, \to be observed that this judgment is not of 
Ihe highest authority. The judgment -in appeal reversed 
the judgment of the Court of Review— it was not unani- . 

Inous, and the riajority was completed by the opinion of a ■ 
ludge ad hoc. Bxk whfet is slill more important is that the ' ^ 
Reasons given in Wpport of the judgment appear to me to 

be either erroneous, or to lead to a conclusion directly the 
(everse of that arrived at ' ' ^ ^ ^ , ^ ^ . l"^ 

In th4 first plack all hypothecary creditors had not a - * 

htrepari and all t^res paris did u^i give a right, to ex^ute 
- phno. Thw 18 Apparent by the very quotations f^om 

jeau gelled upoh in the case referred to (1 Pigeau; 43 ' 
M 46). In the sicond place the judgiient is supported 
|matextoftheDiW2,8.Tit.5L6.M.NowthisTiti^^^ ' i 
¥^denegotUs gestisi and a moment's examination shows -^ ^ 

Turn utterly the BUiui Law is incompatible with the 



m 


!,•■ 


Pi 


!•-' 


I '1 


. .• 


''il 


i 


'■ „ I 


%- 


' 


\ 



s:^' 




84 



MONTREAL LAW ftEPORTfl. 



reflkB«(^ng of the learned .judge. The rule i^ this : if yoJ 
adt for y^oui^lf and not for me you have not the actio! 
negotwrum gekor against me ; but if you mix youriself ui 
in my affairs for yoiu* own benefit I have that actio^ 
against you. But still, if 3roii have done something abov 
my affairs, you shall not have dii^tion for what it cc 
you, but for what I gained. Judge Potette and the majoritj 
of the Court of Appeals said, if they realt^vrelied on thj 
text of law they quoted, that the party has an action fof 
what it cost him i^ interfere, not what it benefttd^ 
hypothecary creditor. They have made no sepiblance 
proof that the appellant has grown richer at their cost. , 
think this establishes that under the old law there was iiJ 
privilege for the costs of action to the hypothecary crq 
ditor, and none certainly to the chirographary creditoi 
but only to the former for the costs' of execution. 

To what extent is this altered by the Code of 0. P.j 
Art. 606, § 7. "The plaintiff is next paid his costs of suiJ 
taxed as in an- uncontested case not inscribed for proof. "I 

The " plaintiff, " according to its ordinary significatioif 
does not include those in the position of the respondent 
But, it is said, they are .plaintiffs on their eUstractum. 
cannot think that is a fair interpretation. Nor do I thii 
the respondents' pretensions are supported by article 
1994-5 and 2009, § 5, C. C. Still less can I find any argu 
ment in support of their pretensions in the 83 Vic. c. I'j 
sect, t, Q. . , ' ■; i! 

Baby, J.: — 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Ooi 
maintaining the collocatiol^H in favor of respondents for tl 
sum of $154.40. The cas(^> involves a Question of cons 
derable interest to the meml^rs of the bar. 

It appears that one B^matd^merson brought an actio 
of damages against Adam Darling and others, which wi 
dismissed with costs, dUtradwh of which was granted 
respondents, the defendant's attorneys. 

These costs were taxed at the sum of tl54.40, imd Eme^ 
son having failed to pay them, the respondents took oij 
an execution, and caused tp be seized a certain lot of la 





OOUBT OF QU;^!^^ BSNCa 

jbelonging to he said Emersoiiiho, by oppoiiition^'ihe 
■sale on pretence of certain irtigblarities in the seiaure. 
■caused a furtl er sum of |86.26 Iht costs to accrue 

This opposi ion being disiliiss^ with costs, on writ of 
l^emlUwniE:^»Huu,ihe\ot of land in question was soW 
land adjudged to appellaht ixiho sum of 1700. 

This sum ol money haying been brought into Oonrt in 
Ih^ ordinary ^urse. a repprf of collocation and distri- 
bution of the proceeds of said sale was prepared by the 
k)rothonotary Ind posted injW ordinary way. , \ 

fiy this rep<^rt, the respondents were collocated fdr the 
^wo abov«rmehtioned sum^. V 

The appellK who was an hypothecary creditotl^t 
Emerson to tile am^ttt^of 11200, not getting the whole] 
bf his claim ak appeared by t^e Registrar's certificate, but^ 
bnly a small riart thereof, contesteO^ the ^tb item of the 
\Tl\n 1**^ f "oration in favor of respondents for the 
mUO, bem^ their dosts of suit- In his contestation 
lansey says tliat respondents were wrongfully and ille' 
ally coUocatfed in preference to himself and to his pre- 
ludice, masnf ch as, by law. and specially by Art. 606 of 
Ihe Code of jCivil Procedure, the costs of judgment in 
bvorof adefendarft and of a defendant's attorney have 
ko pnvilegekgainst and do not rank before a hypothecary 
llaim existing against the immoveable sbld, the only coste 
KSff P * »>yHfiecary creditor being those o^ the 

This pretinsion o<^ appellant was set aside by the iudir- 
[lent beloW. J "K > 

It was hild by the learned judge that the privileges for 
^ts, firm Me justice, vrera not fixed by the CJode of Civil 
Iwcedure but by articles 1994 and 2009 of the C^ivil Code 
II which jvere to be found none of the restrictions alleged 
ly the contesting party, and that, in law, all the law<4ts 
fcd all e^enses i^urred in the interest of the mass of the 
teditors /were privileged; also that Art. d06 of thfe Code 
FUvil Procedure, as Amended. appUed only to the order 

^hich such law cos^ should come in, and was not to 
' takeii as a restriction of the privilege granted for costs 




18M. 

Tnmy 

Balbuna. 



:\\^ 



-c<t 






• ^iK 



k.J. 



.^fy 



y'^*^'''*^ fy*?#f^ 



86 



MONTRFAL LAW RRPOttm 



MM. 

TanMr ' 

Balbtint. 



>}\- 



r>:\ 



\^. f' 



I !' 




by the abovo-citod artioh'B of tho Oiyil Code : That thd 
coatii incurrad and claimod by roapondenta had been mad)^ 
"q/iH de itrontrer la r4ali$atitm du gage (immuH d$» crtamdtn^ 
and thoroforo Moasra. Bethano could/ not be deprived 
the privilege given to them by law. I may aay, at onn 
that tho minority of this Court takea the name viewof thtj 
Incase. The costB (claimed by reHt)oudent8, aa privileged 
have been incurred, undoubtedly, in the interest of th^ 
mass of the creditors, as tho claim thereof an the plaintifl 
had the effect of bringing the property to a sale. Bull 
says i^)pellant, the privilege for costs is granted to plainl 
tifi'H attorney and not to the defendant's. This is playing 
upon words ; all that is required by law for (he costs 
be privileged is that they should be incurred ib theinteij 
est of the mfUMB of the creditors, and by the word tVi/ere 
is meant the bringing to sale of the gage comtnun of th^ 
creditors. Who here caused the lot of land in question 
be brought to sheriff'ls sale and the proceeds thereof divide 
among the hypotheciary creditors ? Respondents, nobodi 
else, as already remarked. ThiB creditors bene^ted thereby^ 
and the poHition of the respondents cannot be assimilate 
to anything but that of plaintiffs on the seizure, whici 
they are in fact. This is the only interpretation that ca 
be given to the articles hereinabove mentioned, notwit 
standing what may be laid down to\ the contrary in tli 
Roman Law or the principles whicmmay have govenuj 
the matter in timeH past. \ 

The decision is altogether in ^cordance with the ui 
versal practice and jurisprudence followed in the Provii 
of Quebec since the Civil Code has/ become law. 
vionsly, there was a difference between the practice f()| 
lowed in the District of Montreal and the one held in tli 
of Quebi^c. In the latter, a certain amount of costs 
considered privileged whilst in the former, the coats 
the execution and seizure alone were reputed 80> 
under the new law,' all differences have disappeared, 
practice has become uniform, ^nd. all posts incarredl 
bring the property to a sale have been oonsidered to 
privileged, -and- risked, accordingly, on the oollocat 



w 


\; 


'■ 




r 


n 




- 


■--„ ii 


- 


^, 




^ 


' 








t' 


\ 


*„ 


■? 




'* 


■ 




p 


• 




I ■ 


\ 


V ' ^ 




■ / 
f 






* • 


•• 






. 




■■"\ 








■7- 






^ 




^^ 


* 


\ 


• 






■J" 


♦ 










COURT OF (^UEENU BJiKClt |f 

Mhflflt. I am lVe« to admit tU. a« th« Idw «Unda iipw itii 
hypoth.H^ary creditor may iiomotimeH 8ufler Homoyhttt filom 
tho largo amount of ,,oatH incurred by the prolonff^nl liti- 
«ation of the iwtio«, but thia in matter for th^ .(wwdera- 
tion 6i the legislator who may rentrict thin privilegtthore- 
ttfter, and not for the tribunals of ju«tice. Thi« Court muHt 
deal with the question aciording to the law as it now 
Ntands, and not on what it Hhbuld be. 
The judgment in, therefore, f^oniirmtjd with oo«tH. 

^ JudgmentofS. 0. conarmed. 

J. Colder, for appellant. 

Bethune 4" Bethune', for respondents 

(8.B.) 



l!9 novembre 1884. 
jCoraiw DoBiON, J. 0., Monk, TuyiBE, Orosb & Baby, JJ. 
Le Rev. J. 0. G. QAUDIN, 
V (Dematuieur en Cour Infhieitre) ' 

' \ Appelant ; 

' \ • '■■ > 

JOHN ETHIER, - . ^ 

(Dtfendeur en Cour In/Meure) 

Intim6. 

^ime— Action du euri centre acheteur aprit la r^coUe—PHvU^ge. 

\mt : Que 1. dime est due pir oelui qui a rtcoIM le g»in, et non pwi pw 
celul qui I'a •implement fait battwetvanner. * ""P^P" 

2. Que le privily du cuhS pour la dime exi«te Bur le« rtooltee aui v 
jont .^Jette. Unt que te grain «.te en la pc«e«ioo de celui quui 
rt9olM,m«i. wpeid dfi. que cc grain pwae -ana frauds entie letf 
mala, d un-aoqa<reur de bonne foi pour valable couBid^raUon. 

|. DoBiON, OJ.:— ------__.,^''; ../;::;-; .^,^-■--^ ■^^■■•■ 

Le demandeur appelant, curt de la paroisse de St^Valen- 
Im, a poumnivi le d6fendeur, cultivateur et commeroant 
^e grrains, de la parbisae do St-Oyprien, pour la pomme de 



*•-. 
■i:'-" 



-^ 



IMH. 
I)eiCiin«. 



-^-+- 



^ 



■'^' ' 



/**, *\v\ 









■lilltr 




V 



m 



?> 



MONTRKAI, UW HFI-ORTS • 

10.A2 qu'il pr^>t«m(l lui Hrt\ diiM <:omrao r<<ipr^ont«nl la 
4^imo Ntir tino «'flct«ino quantity dt* gnUna qnn l«i d^fond«nr 
a«ohoU! d'uti itnmm^' IMoiiard (^hoiunard, rtiltivaUur di< 
laVl^cpiMHff do Ht-Yaltuitin, r|ui nvnit liii-inAm«^ caltiv^*, 
r^<»ifU(*. «tt fltifin'anfi;^' co jfruin Ii«< d/^(Miid«ur aprAa avoir 
^ ac^h«J^M«< grain I'a fait hatlrn tVt vuiiriur, »t la prMtuitioii 
do l'app«^lanl t'al qu« Iw d^tfttndour doit la dtmo aur <;«* 
grain. \ . 

lift Ootir Inf(F)riaurfl a rtmvoyi^ cotto action (1), <U uouh 
Rommtm tnun d'opinion do conflrm<ir <U) jitgomont. TVapiitv 
laiit avail on oU'ot tin privik;go pour aa dimo Hur lo grain 
t*n question, maia Moulomont on uutant qu'il reatait «n la 
poaaoHsion de «;olni qui I'avait recolt^*, et qui dovait la 
dime. t)n mom«mt qu» l« grain a «haiig^ d« maina par la 
vente ou autro tranamiaHion do propriut^', co privil^'go dii 
cur^^ oat d6trait, i-ommo tout autrt^ privil6ge d» oettt* 
nature. ' 

L'apiM^lant a <-it^; an arr^t do la Oour dn Uanc da Koi 
rendu lo 16 Iseptombro 1808, jV Montrt'al, dana une oauw* 
entre Mosairo Piorro Robitaille, demandeur, et Igna(« 
Ijamarro, d6fendenr, qui a maintonu Taction da our6 pour 
la dime contro le d/^ifendour ipii avait achet^t une r^;olte 
en partie anr pi6dNt en partie en -grange. Quant k la por- 
tion achet^e anr pied il n'y a pas de diffienlt^ ; le d6fen- 
dear ayant r6colt6 ce grain devait eii payor la dime ; mais 
il est difficile do jomprendro le jugement 4 regard <lu 
grain aohet^ par lo d^foudour apros qu'il avait 6t^ mia oq 
grange. Ijea faita de cette canae ne aont i^as expoa^a d'nne 
maniore tout k fait satiaftttsante, mais nous sommea port^w 
k croire qu'il y avait une question do fraade, qai a dd'ter- 
min6 cette partie dn jugement. 

Dans I'esp^ce actuello, qui no proaente ancane fraade, 
uoaa ne sommes pas disposes 4 ^tendre le privilege do 
oqt6 sur le g^ain qui a paaa^ entre lea mains d'on tiers- 
acqa^rear de bonne foi pour vafable con^d6raiidn.. Laj 
dime exiate sur le grain senlement et non paJs aar la paille, 

(1) Voir Popinion de Bon Honneur M. le juge Qiagnoii rapports au 6«J 
vol du Legal News, p. 166. 






f*mr^ , 



apportte Ml 6«| 



COURT or MIFBEN-H BKMOII. 




A 



\t U «nr* n « •uctiii droit do .nlte on d<i r«y«ndio«t Joi» qui ««m: 
111 iH5rm«ttM d.. •.ai.ir !«« ff„rb,,i. „ntr« Im in«iii« ,lun tiww- »•»«•• 

« , -, ... ;■ Jnffuimmt «;onlirio6, 

rnnulii .V Chtmi, |K)ur III tim6. 



(KM 



. ,to March 2*7, 1884. 

b>r««. DoKioN. C.J.. Monk. Kamsay. Oeohs, & Baby. JJ. 

IIK^XOHANGJi: BANK (W CANADA, v. CRAIO et 
^ . WX., ftQd POTTliR pw en cauu. 

§^o^'*re^IntcHption for mquAt.^* 

fcW th.t i. notflompotoAtt.. .ny party in . cm to l„crite for the 

I u..ri't..ttZ.,j:'Ie ' ""'"' T" '*"^'"« •* -^^ -^l 



^^ 



DoRiON, O.J. :— 

-An application waa made iij this ca«e for tZfto 
ppeal from an interlocutory ji^dgment of the Superior 
[ourt. gran ing the plaintiff •« rJoiion to r«j.nt theT en- 
ant s macnption for the adduction of eviden.^ at lenolS 
. JT^ iT**""" ^" **'" ""^ » ^kether a p^y 
Z.!T ^ **" ^"^ "^"^^ •** ^«**«*^ Article 243 of the 
ode of Procedure says: "Any party may. eithet in his 
»ol.ration or m any other pleading, or by a notice served 
Ipon the opposite party, declare his option that the case 
«! n '.**''""*^ /* **»« «»«»« time for proof and for final 
eanng immediately after proof" This was not done 
^e. Article 284 says : '• When the case is not to be tried 

knT?^^?^**'' ?"*^*' '"•y ^»'"^"t,e it upon the 
WI fo the adduction of evidence. " The defendant con- 
H« that under this article he had the right to inscribe 

lake the option under article 248. the defendant hid the . 
Ight to inscribe undw totide 284. Article 236, which has::: 



•^ 







40 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



H fc 



^' H 



a' ' 



iM*- some bearing upon the case, is in these words : " The 
^"'"^f ^"''evidence is taken down in writing, either at length or in 
Cmii. 'notes, according to the provisions contained in this sec- 
tion. '* Then article 284, upon which the plaintiff relies 
to reject the inscription, is in these' terms : '^' Upon the 
consent in writing of all the parties to a case, the proof I 
may be taken down in writing in the manner hereinafter [ 
provided, either before a judge or before the protho- 
V ^ notary, " etc. 

/ From this the plaintiff argues that you cannot in any I 

° case take the e»^/e in the ordinary, form unless yon havej 
' - got the c6nsent of both parties. There is no doubt a cbn^ 
tradiction to some extent between articles 234 and ^84; I 
but, taking all these article's together, the court has to g|ye 
an interpretation to them, and the interpretation which it 
Butsjupon them ia this — that^io^»f7»^teishi^l be proceeded] 



i: 



-......^with in the old manner without the consent of both par- 
ties. In the case of the Queen v. Martin, a.u enqu4te was] 
proceeded with in the old manner, and i^ was held by I 
Mr. Justice Ramsay that the witness could not be pro- 1 
secuted for perjury upon the deposition because thefe was] 
not a consent in writing. The effect of the present judg-[ 
ment is to hold that one party cau always insist uponl 
proceeding at enqu4te a.vA merits. The motion for leave) 
to appeal is, therefore, rejected; 
Monk, J., {dissenHens) : — 
' I think this appeal should be allowed. The defendantl 

- inscribed for enqitSte alone. It is true that he put " for thel 
adduction of evidence at length " in his inscription. Thef 
inscription was objected to on the ground that the defend-! 
daUt had no right to inscribe for enqu4te at length withonll 
the .consent of the opposite party. I cannot understand 
how it is practicable to carry on an enqwHe for the addno 
^ tion of evidence in that way, if before inscribing you mi 

have the consent of the other party. I am of opiniod 
>,that under article 284 the defendant's inscription shonl^ 
be maintained. 
Bamsat, J. : — 
There is always difficulty in deciding as to matters) 



COURT OF QUEEN/8 BENCH. 



41 



M 



will probably continue td create Unnecessary embarrass- '="'^"8"^ 
men as long as it is ^ubj^cted. without%ontrol to ^"* 
,1 ?^ w'"*"- ^^' '^ '^^ '^' t^e history of the 
legislation before us is recent and well-known. The old ' 
«,^^^ system which was a subject of divereion to tra 
vellers who visited the court house, was to be remodel 
and the scheme adopted was to take the evidence and he!^ 
the pase at once before .judge, as if it were being tS 
befoite ajudge and jury. The inscription for merUs "nd 
heanng then became the ordinary, proceedinrand an 
enqu^teat length under the old. system was a matter Tf 
consent. (Art. 284 C C Pi K,./uT u ^ ^^ 

*!. -* . n ; ^■^' ^^^ »t has been urired bv 

the party moving for leave to appeal that under Article 

284 h^h^^nghiaains..4be. andfthartmwp 
. becMue a mattei of consent whether U should be procee^S 
with at length There are two answers to th s Tt^ 
first place article 284 belongs to sectioh 1. which enters 
into no apecial details as to the mode of proof bu L 
general. In the second place the inscription'^w^' fofthe 
adduction of evidence at length, which could not be Jrr el 
-^^J^onseni.^ This inscription had. there^^t^ 
dealt with to clear the record of a useless procedur^ and- 
the court below properly dismissed it oii moti^ As^o 
^ecaseofthe Queen v. i»fcr/iV to which refeTenceha^ 
been made. I do not consider that it has any specTafbr 
ing on this case. The question was whether p^^^^d ' 
be assigned upon a deposition whefe the con'SS writ 

EnllTr. ..''"^''''I: '^^ "P"^ tV authority oil 
Enghsh tease the court held that it ctf^ld not It vL^ 
question under the criminal law. ^''' '*^'- « was a 

-Motion for leave to ai)peal rejected. Monk. J., dissenting. 

Mama^, Hutchinson^ Weir, for plaintiff '^''^^"^' 

^.e. -OBwaion, for defendants 
(J. K,) 



■/' 



K 



"5.< 



r 



*21L.C.Juri8t,p.i56. 




4> matters) 



m- 




•^~'t""^ 



42 



MONTREAL iIaW REPORTS. 

November 24, 1884. 
Corajw DoRiQN, C.J.^ MoiiK, Ramsay, Tkssier and 



Baby, JJ. 



'% 



LA CORPORATION DU VILLAGE DU BASSIN 
- -DE OHAMBLY, - ; 

'^ • (Defendant below), 

♦ ■ .■ -. . .' ■ ■ 

Appellant, 



ANl^ 



SCHEFFER, 



{Plaint^ belowyfi ^ 
RbspondbnIi 






1 



Municipal law4-Collection Boll — M. C. 965. 

Held, that the formalities pre icribed by the Municipal Code^ith reference 
" to a collection roll must be strictly followed, as in the case of an aete 

de rlpartition annexed to a prods verbai, and where such formalities 
have not been observed this taxes thereby imposed are not exigible* 
and a sale of land for arrears of such pretended taxes will b6 an- 
nulled. 
'2. Where the taxes are illegal in consequence of there being no valid 
collection roll in existence, acquiescence will not give validity to 
such assessment • * 

Baby, J. (delivering the judgment' of the Court) : — 
Le jugement dont on se plaint ici a ete rendu par la 
Cour Sup§rieure sifigeant a Montreal, dans une action 
demandant la r^siliation d'une ventebperee par la corpora- 
tion du comt§ de Chambly.a la requisition de Tappelante, 
d'un huitieme de rimmeuble de I'intimg, pour non, paie- 
^ ment 4e pr6tendues taxes imposees dans la municipalit§. 
L'intim6 allegue par sa declaration que les fonnalit^s 
, ' voulues par la loi pour arriver a faire vendre un immeu- 
ble pour taxes municipales n'ont pas 6t6 suivies, entr'au- 
_ tres qu'il n'existe aucun role de perception dans la mu- 
, hicipalite pour les anuses 1878, 1879, 1880, et que ces 
■'\ taxes sOnt nuUes et non exigibles en loi. 






"■asm oa 
Cnambly 

Sohefler. 



n^ faites pas voir one IpI ' ^J'Jf'''***"^^ etensmte Vous "^ " 

4pa^net^eeSr«^^^^^^^^^ 

veke en oueslion « iM ^,"^''«"<' " "ffirme que la 



qa. k. rtglemeut, mentanta IrTh^r ~","'''ri 



|yer. Et puis venait 



jamais H6 

avwt reconnn ce« taiee elproi 

one rtponse g6n6nile. MM^ 

tTae,«pli,nB «P*cialefttpro^«^de l". n.rf-^. i- .• 
rop^^t lea .ll4«„.3 ,, ^ d^Sta'C tL'"*""' 

V™Ia.u,uelJ.ea„ot.lea pZ„„,^ rS;^™ de. 



/ 



IWreduconaeillocd d«S telle ZJZ "'' "^'"'" 
I Cette cow partag^Bette mwu^M devoir 

-. I. sanvZSrd:^it.?°'s-iW '•"^!f 
Itaies l«galemeit does et ex^w ^" "y*?" de 

h »e l^ppela^t ayertne de g T ,.^ ^ J^ 



"'T^^.; 



■ ./. -.i^^-.L^.' . .- 



^i?ia«!«f^ 



44 



MQMT&EAL LAW BEF0R1& 



••*( 
^ 



Jf 



in*- cahier qU^U prodi:Ut fsate de rdle comport^ toat ce qtte la 

*''?2ilto'de*'' l*>i «Mge qu'un'^le de perception ^n^ienne. O'e^t un 

Ch»mbiy^ .livre de compt^nre' et simple. Lerolede plercuptlon est 

^heifer. ^^ docuttgteut authentiqne complet en soi, pr^parg ehaique 

->^ ann^e ou''-en tout autre temps . fiz6 j[>ar le conseil et q^i 

contieut, an d68ir de la loi (C. M. 966) :— • v " j 

1. Les boms et iUt fie chaque propri^taire coniribuable inherit aa i61e 
devaluation, ou le mot-'' inconnu " Bile propri^taire est incotmu ; "• 
, - , - ■ \ 2! Lea nonis et £tat de touteperaonne *qni (x»upe un terrain impo«able, 
sans en>^tre pr9pri^taire, si eTie est conane, qu'elle solt inscriteonnon 
' siir le r6]e d'^valuation ; > , ' 

^$ 8. 'L% valeur r^% deb Uen-fonds imposablea <le chaque oontribuable ;r- 
^' '^ La" valeur des bi9ns'd(k;lar6s impoaables efn Vertu de Ifrticle 710 4a 
chaque conti^buable ; _ j i, " • ' , 

5. Le total des valeuraimposabW de tout contribuablei; r. .\ 
- 6. Le montapt des taxes payables par chaque oantribuabio^t" 
. ■* ■ * ' 

; II doitifetre depos6 par le secrfetaire-trfesoiier dans son 

bureau, aprds avoir 6t^ compl6t6, duquel 'd6p6t il donne 
' avis public et requiert tontes les pe|rsonniSi^ sujettes au 
paiement de taxes d'en'^ayer le montant, a son bureau, 
danp le^ 20 jours qui-siifyent la publication de cet avis, et 
c^. West qi|'a I'expiration du dfelai de^20 Wrs que le 
secr6taire-tr§8orier doit faire la demande duipaiement^de 
f^ ^ ces taxes' (Art. 961.) V, ' i ^ 

^ Les dispositioi^ du Oode Municipal doiviint 6tre inter- 
pr6t6€;s dans un i^ens large, je Tadmets, mftis il y a de ces 
fbrmalit^s qui constituent la chose eUe-m^me en quelqujB 
«orte, et on ne saurait les 'ecarter sans. cpmmettre une 
grave injustice 'ou sanctionner un ordjce d^ choses t^ue le j 
l^gislateuT n'a pas vonlu admettre. > 

Yoyez commj^ la loi entoure de precautions et de fomia- 
lit6s rigoureuses Facte de repartition attache Jl un'proces- 1 
yerbal oil a un reglement. Or, qu'esWe qVun tole de 
perception si''ce;n'e8t une repartition sur tous les muni- 
cipes, a mson de leur iiit6r6t foncier dafis la chose muni- 
cipale, des taxes, que la municipality impose ? Le premier I 
est restreint dans $«s effets et I'autre est .g6n6ral, VQilaf 
tout. •PonrqUi6i aloi-s ne point donner autant d'authenti- 
citf 4 1't^i qu'a I'autre? Faire autrement W serait alleri 
contre I'^sprit anssi bien que lalettre dek loi^^ol douto. 









t inacriteoa'non 



;X:,/ 



totJM # QUi 




BENqtt, 



/ 



4« 



Mjiw 11 f% acqttleikjeinent, lyoute I'appelante, et cela wm. ' 
couvre tontes les-fomialitfis. Soit ^urcertaineB iiiforma,Oo'K!5''on * 
lit68 mais npn pas celles de la nature de celles-oi. L'intim6 ^W 
. n a pu 86 soumfittre au paie'me^t d'une taxe qui n'avait ^^•'"- ' 

pas d existence I6gale;il a audit* lescomptesduaecrt- / 

taire-tr68orier quiront H6 trouvfis cdTrrectes, dit-on Oui 

mai8 cel9 ii'a pas donnf droit k la corporation de r6clamw- 

do lui une t^xe qui u'existait p,«. Elle u'6tait due par - 

lui et exigible pur. la 6orporatiotf1qu'en autant que cette 

demiere avait, par sea officiers, fail ce qui 6tait ^sentielle 

pour donner A cette taxe une' existence l6gale, A d6faut de -- ,. 

quoi Spheffer ne devait rien. Assutfement, ce i*6tendu 

acquiescement n'est doncd'aucun effet. ^ 

Mai^tenitnt, quant A. la taxe de"l880..1e prfildvemeiit - 
par Toie de saisie et veAte de I'immeuble en question poui' 
nrfn paiement n'6tait nuUement autorisfe par le con^U ° 
iel que le veut la loi ; c'est le contraire qui apparait. 

Pou^tou^eacesrajsons/lacpurconfirmelejugementde ' 
Ma cour. de premidre instance et rmvoie IWl avec*^ " . 

' depemsv. . -^ < '^'^ , ' »♦ ^ 

_ , ^, ^ ' ■ J«dgment,confirmell; ►. , ^ ' - ^- . ^ . 

PrifwOam et Lafontaine for the r^p^mdent ' - ^ ' * ^ ' ^. ' 

(J. K.) . . '* r ,' ."!■.■ ' " ■ A-:. :•: v'» r V -■*.■■■*■ -.. 



#■ 



,>^< 



,^ vl 






iJ.- 








. " * i. 


. ^ . ' 


V 


\ 






^ 


> • • . ^ 










• ,--►• — ^^ 






• ' ' r 1 


* 




1, 




"■ ■" ' ■■ ■•.-■.. ■■ ■..■:'. " ■■ ■■■■ '/ , , 
... ■■-■■'-- ■ 






■ .'■• ' ■. ■ ■:■'■■ : ■ ■*• ■': :"■•••: 


' . '^ 




.;.;,■,.- ;..■'-..:■;■ .:'\- ■'..^^■. J, ■ ■..,;■... 


• > < 




^ \ ■■ ■,. ■ ■' ■■ 




# 


;."•'•! -; •iiiiiir 


*•■. *''■ .'■' '■■• '-'i^ 



u 



3'- ' 



t; 





4 
'( 


.», 1 /■ . 


■ -1 


1 ^; .■.■ 






1 




. / < 




/ : 


■ ■■ ? 
* • 




k''f'''J 


f; 



M 



' 7' 



46 < 



MONTttEAL LAW WEPOBTS. 





• ' . . November 2'7, 1888. 

Coram PqB[|ON, -GJ., Ramsay, J./'^TitssiER, J., OBoas, J., 

Baby, J. ^., . 

LA CORPORATION DU c6kTfi D'OTTAWA, 

[Tkfendant v\ the Court hdow^ 

jiJ ■ . pi ' ' Appellant; 

■ , AND 

LA COMPAGNIE DU CHEMIN DE FER DE MONT- 
REAL; OTTAWA ET OCCIDENTAL 

J ■ _, (Plaintyfiu the Court Moi^ 

'** , ^^7^ Respondent. 

Nominal Damages-^Breofh of Contract. 

Held, (DoRiON, C.J., and Crosb, J., dissenting) that iinder tlie law in foFce 
. in the Province of Quebec nominal damages, to the amount even of | 
ilOO, may be awarded for breach of coatract where there is no- proof 
of actual damage. / , " 

2. That (he obligation of a municipality to issue debentures in payment 
of a snbscriptioR of shares in a railway is not to be regarded as 
ecroivalent to ^ mere obligatioa to pay money, in which case under 
CJC. 1077, the damageifTesulting from delay would consist bnly of 
iriterest from the daanOi default 

The appeal wais itp^ a judgment of the Superior Coart, 
Montreal (TorranceI J;), 18th April, 1882, (reported in 
26 Lower Canada Juiist, p. 148 ; 6 L. N. 132.) 

DOBION, C.J. 4</MS.fi3— 

On the 12th of Jui^^ 18!fl,^he Municipal Council of the 
County of OttaW;i passed a by-law authorizing the warden j 
If the Cojii^nty to subj^cribe Tor twenty t^oium^yiares, 
'of ten dollars each, in the Northern Colonizajiioh IGulway, 
to be paid for in debentures, at twenty-fi^e years' date; 
One hundred and fifty thousand dollars of which were to I 
be issued as the work progressed, but not to exceed one- 
half of the money expended on the works made in the 
County of Ottawa, nor three thousand dollars per mile,| 
|;he balance of fifty thousand dollars to be issued when th« 
r6ad should be completed from, Montreal to Ottawa. - 
^' On the 19th of January, 1875, the respondents claimed I 
from the appellants debentures for |1 12,096, being the 
amount of one-half of the monies they had expended on 











■ .,i^ . 


^ 








' Ij \ .; ~ 


■■-■ " . "■■-'?r-r'.- ■,■■ ;■■■-- 


■ . -,;.,-.■.': 






''M-:\ 


■-■ .'- -i&'---' 


. V ■ * ■ ■ ;^' ■- 


r ^'..'■: /': ■' ;■.'■■■ .;■:*■■'. 


4 






: : ■1/ r'P!' ;■;.■ 


' ■■ " ;;.;.. ■.,; ; -^.^ ;: 


-' ■-• ^'?:---^^,--.^ 



1 1 . 
■i I 




^ 



OOtHT OP QUEEN'S 6ENCH. 



it 



the 19th of June following they instituted the preeen" i-o^- 
action. by wluch they claim from the appellants dCZTr"'" 
to the amount pf ISOO.OOO. on the fXwing sZcmc^ffW- 
grounds alleged in their declaration : "^ 8pecihca.ir..o.*o. 
► 1. That, by th^ refusal of the appellants to issue {heir 
debentures according td their agreement.' the respondente 
are unable to complete their railway P«naents 
2. That by such refusal they are exposed to lose the 
balance of 160^00. which are to bo issued after the rau! ^ 
way ,s made from Montreal to:Ottaw'^ provlded it W ^ - 
completed before the first day of December. 18t6 " 

\ t ^* *"^^'' **^ *^* Company has been injured bv 
such refusal, and that respondents have thereClfeel ' 
deprived of lai^e 3ums .f money whicK 4 

since he 19th qf January. 18^6. pn the amount for which \ v ' 
del^turesshouldhavebeenissuedjntheiffavor^ r \ - 

I fil!?' ^ *f *' ^""""""^ :*^ **»« declaration, and also ^ 
filed a peifemptory exception and a defense enfati 

^The demurrer was dismissei, and the appellants hav^ ' 
b^ condemned to pay $100 for the severaTdLnages sjf 
ieMi by the respondents. -mages sui 

The appeal js from^his judgment. By the" agreement" 

Siderlt'T^ '"''"^ tl^eap^emnrbLam 
Shareholders, in the Company now represented by the ' 
respondents and agr'eed to pay their stbck. not in mon^v ■ 
but by the issue of their debentures, subject toS 
conditions mentioned in their by-law. Takingfor^t^ '' 

ntitle.them to claim .th^,tm.ot6 if debentC the 
appellante woul^ be jiT the position of a stocSolder ^ 
K^ngiopaycaHs on iJsst^^^ calHave I 

been made and have become l^iyable. ' ' f 

I If these caUs had been payi*le in money the resnai. " V 
fonts would be entitled to olL» the amoun'^^^o^XTS: \ 
fcue. toother with interest ther^n from the dateytl!: . \ 







48 



'1 



'-iWi-:.. ■■'■';.'vv- ■-.^' . ^ , 
MONTREAL LAW RI^POOTR / 




jl ' 



I 



I 



"•»• demand, intereft being the only compensation a. creditor 
comtid'Siuw. can obtain for the detention of a sum of money which his 

uli.du debtor refuiCB to pay (art. lOtt 0.0.) 
dS*M.'.°o? 4 o.' Corporation debentures are not money, bpt mere pro- 
mises to p*ay according to the terms on which they are 
issued. Their actual value may be greater or l«ss than 
their face Value, according to the rate of interest they b«ar 
and the credit of those by whom they are issued. \ 
> The only claim the respondents were entitled to urge 

against the appellants was a jclaim fw the amount of 

^ , debentures earned or their value, a^ the time they shonld 

have been issued, with interest and costs. i 

The loss of credit, the failure of a creditor to fulfil his 
engagements generally, because his debtor has not fulfilled 

his undertaking, have never been considered as being an 
element in the estimj^to of the damages to be allowed by j 

a court of justice. ' t ' . 

The bad example giveii by a defaulting debtor, which 
encourages other debtors to become. defaulters, is, still a 

more remote cause which can neithergive rise to nor sup 
port a claim for damages. 
„ . * The respondents have not adduced any evidence what- 
soever that they had Suffered any actual loss by the deiault 
of the appellants ttf issue their debentures. They have 
neither proved ^the value of those debentures, nor even 
that their enterprise was a profitable one, which seems tol 
be the gistof their claim. "^^ I 

The only evidence adduced by the respondents consistgj 
"- ' in the loose and speculative opinions of witnesses, mostl 
/ ' of whoni are connected with the railway, and who esti-l 
' mate the damages suffered by the -respondehts at fronj 

1160,000 to |400,000', without in anywise explaining hov" 
such enormons dMuages could have arisen from a failnn 
on the part of the appellants to issue 4112,096 at the timj 
'^igreed upon.- It is evident that the Court below was 
opinion that such wild estimate could have no substa 
tial basis, for. Instead of imndreds of thotfsaiiia dollars 
merely allowed one hundred dollars for tha pretende 
dainages of the respondents. Th^e is far less evideno 




»» 



-i* 



'-r — W-r 



^^^^ 



/ 



OO0BT Of QUlEire bWch. 



4» 



for a judgment for flOO th^n for one of two or three hun- ^m. ■ 

1 Moreover by comparing the <Ute at whi,h the deben- 
H6,.nd the date of the «tio«, 10th of June, 18»6.it^m ' ■ 

Kl „ f t T '°'"'™' I"''""' »» 'he debentwe. . 
konld only have become due on the Wth of Jrily follo^ 
K,.., ««,rd.ng to the agreement, the intent on tL 

K" T T '"''^'""* •™'y "» ■»»■""■«. reckoning from 

toeir dale. Sappoeing the action conld be coneidefed m ^ ' 

TheXOourt ^low did not consider it an action for 
';™n ; «»ce .t only allowed tx^, ^hile intent Ine / 
™ld have amounted to seyorali^ndred dollars 
It h«, been said that Hte>dgmenlt might be considered 'i 

4. 1 understand the rule in England an actiofl will lie , 

r amere breach of an .groement,f41thongh noTols or 
»,l»ry may have resulted from suchl breach but inTui • *«. 

te™Jf'J'P°"'"''-^' "."'«■'«''■•>'* this is wha :. ; 
. termed nominal damages (SMgwick on the Measure of ' ' 

applied m thw Province. ^her» an action S not S * 

Wred n» ac^ug los. n^r beim deprivad of any g.in b, 



•<-i/ 



a' « 



.i\.. 



/ 



v^- 



1M. 

t« Obfu. tin 
onmtt (I'Ot 

ud!« 



■1#: 



1^-- ' ^- 



I ' 






^ 



m 



in MONTIltitAL LAW REFORTa 

,■ ^ft* ■•Man-.. '■''.■ ' I 

auch breashflPno words nominal damftgeii or their eqji!- 
tuwa valents are not to be fouttd in the French lawbooks, at 
i*u.« .10 l"'"'^' •" cfifnnoction with' chiims for a breach of oontracit. 
35"fil"o!"*o.'Tho plaintiff must prove that he has suffered some dam- 
ages from the breath of covenant complained of, in whichl 
'^ case he will succeed, otherwise his action will bel 
dismissed. " 

It is ih/uria tine damno for which there is no right ofl 
action. The only exception to this rule is where damagml 

. have been stipulated- by the partiei as provided for byl 

Article 1076 O. C. or fixed by law, as in the Art. 1077O. C.,| 
which allows interest as' damages resulting from delay iai 
tiio payment of money, the Article at^ing : " without the| 
creditor being obliged to prove any loss," which sho^ 
that in other cases a loss must be establishediJuid Art! 
10*78 0. 0. says that the damages due to the creditor a* 
in general the amount of the loss ho has sustained and 
the profit he h«s been deprived of We may therefor 
) safely say that an action does, not lie here for merelil 
J nominal damages, and the maxim rfe minimis non curat lex i 
especially applicable to vexatious actions of dami 
which can haVe no practical results, the policy beii 
tather to discourage than to promote such actions. 

I would have reversed the judgment pf the Court beloi 

and dismissed the respondent's action on the twofold 

^ ground that, the declaration discloses no right of actio! 

. and that the respondenta_ha*e,fltot-;|^roved that they ' 

suffered any loss/ or damage fof which the appellan^ 
''' y could be held liable, but b^iag in the minority the iu^ 
' ment will be comfirmed.^ $ 

>, Cross, J. (rfws.) :— . / r .-„ - 

In t^ action.instituted 19feu June, 18t6, the responden 
Boughi to recover from the appellants five hundred the 
_^: sand dollars damages which they claimed on their repB 
_ sentatiwn of facts-to the effect following: 
% That the appellants were subscribers to the capital sto 
♦ of the respondents' railway to the extent of twenty the 
sand shares of ten dollari^ each, amounting to two hnnd 
' ~ — V rr-r — . . . • 



/: 




A.- 






y -■' 






' w 



COURT OF QUEBNV BllfCn: 



m 



thon«nd domr^ Vhioh had Un «nbi,orib«d for under --* 
the authority of a by-law of the.ppollant. ^ntaining the - '"-J^ - 
I conditiona following: -. ^ » j"® •»•»" •I'Vu.w. 



1. That the Bubscription would'be Layabla indeblnlS''"^'^'*" 



«r, yo,™ from then i»u. ™d b..rt«g i Jere.t .t th« ".[« 
ot .u p,, ce|.l. per «,„am, .„a l„ b« tdc,m by the oTm* 

paBy.t par ,np»yinenl of their .abMriptiou. ■ T 

I a There .hoaJd be payable monthly * on thorab- 

«npt,on toproportion « the work p«ig,e»ed,.bot T^ 

& °°"""' ■"" "" """ "f »W« P" 

& To con.tn.ct the bridge, on lhe#nclp»l river, with 
btone pier, and to n.e .teel raU, of forty eighlmrn^ 
Hght per yard, and to build the road ind 11..^™^ 
ll.nc«, eqnal m quality and material arid in con,t™S. 
^h, rail«>«i called the St. Uw«„ce Id 0^^ 

e/o:-t,:,"i:Jsfferbirf8»r '"'* " " •'«""">»- -^ 

r That in March, I8K, work had boon done on mid r.il 
N within the limit, of the County J^otl^Tl^ 
Ue of three hundred th„„»nd dolU o^ t":,! t°f 
^riof fifty mile,, and that in January of that yTthe 
rork had attaiaod to the extent to entitle fheill * 

WlUnt,Z;ir/'l Tit"'"*™ ""^x to 'he 
E^l ,,*'''"''' <"'*'«'"'>™ for thi, amount ' 

ktach the appellant, refn«,ai that they, the Sw^y 

fe of ftrw.'""'",^ '"„'»""""■'' "■e'work. on ttl 
prms ot the by-law an#to finish it bv thfl f?r«+ ^fn 

Uen n«., ,8.5. on the oondi^^t tt^^^^^^^^ 
M on their part fulfil the conditions of thS ^T^ 

[That the pefosal, negligence and omission bfttfaDDel- 

teltTh!^*'' '^f'"^*^ thef debentZsSe 

Z^rZl^y^Tt *"? ™ T'^« considerable .. 
'am not onl y by put ti ng in p ori l (he payment oi teid 



r«r 



A i 



*¥' 



5r 




^ 





1 






MONTREAL I,AW REK)KTH. 



_j^. 



IIW.1. 



flhomln i|» r«r 
a« M.. O. A 







i "■ 



>,. * 



■am of fifty thouMVid dollani, bat tAm by li^joring till 
•iwu'3tt*riO'«»<iit' ofrtbw WKppwlwnlH and dnpriviiig th«m of (xmui- 
UcL.th, <ler»b^> iBmn-th«t the fenpoiuloiitu woqld hiv« h«d th^ 
,r ^1^^ ^^ riH'eivo and woukl havM got and roceivod, an w«ll| 
from-thfl <;ity of Montreal uiidor and iu virtue of t^y-lawj 
No. 6l>. «o,h.»diil« A of the Art, 3(1 Vic. c. 49, an of that 
the Oovornmoiit of Qm^boc, from aitd out of th« Hubsidyl 
voted to tht« ru8i>ond«uitH by and ia virtuo of the Act off 
(^K^lMt; a7 Vibt., cap. 2, and that buHidua these damage 
# tho ronpondoiitH had the right to claim from tho appellaiitil 

intdieat on tho umonnt of dobcnturos IVoYn tho date oAh« 

protest 19th January, 1H76. 
The apiMjUants demur to this answe?. ^ 

1. Because it was for damages for lofs of credit and fo 
non-delivery of debentures. 

2. The only thing reR|)pndnnt8 coqM olaiin^ was tl 
/ delivery of the debentures or their value in money. 

8. The only obligation of the appolbnts was tho payJ 
meut of money and interekt which rbspoudents did uc 
claim. \ i^ . 

4. Apart from tho demand the appellants Would stlB 
remain liable for the debt and interest. 

They further pleaded that" the respondents had not ._, 
filled the conditions of the by-law, they were insolvonti 
and had declared their inability to complete the re 
within the prescribed delay. That they had not paid fa 
■ the lands taken for the road, had never had the require 
capital 6f>M«y«V/e subscribed, no calls had been paid, tl 
subscriptions of the municipalities were conditional 
could not be enforced. TJhe charter had been changed froa 
that of a Provincial to a Dominion one, to which appelj 
louts had not consented and were not bound ; that re 
pondeuts could not claim for damages and could only hav 
claimed money and interest. 

The Attorney General for Quebec intervened, claimii, 
that the railroad, the rights of the respondents, the cob 
^ tractor and the subscribers of stock had all been transfer 
to the Quebec .Government by a conveyance execute 
before Dumoulin, Notary, the 2nd November, J876, 







oooMzar 



luin of (xinnt- 
liavn had thf 

lUVtMl, M WiV 

u« of ^^y-law| 
an of that ol 
' tht) Hubsidy 
>f the Act ol 
leflo damngtil 
he appelUiiti{ 
le dat« oAhci 



nxlit and fnr 

linS^waa thd 
money. 
wm the pay-j 
douts did u< 

I Wonldi stiS 

had not 
)re inBolventJ 
lete the ra 

not paid fo^ 
the require 
ten paid, tli 
kditional 
;hanged frog 
vhich appelj 
id ; that 
dd only haT 

ed, claimii 
itfi, the cos 
n transfer 
Lce execute 
»er, IStS. 




4 ■■'t.Si-f ' 

' 88 



1. .' 



injuring th*l«.h.ch f^Vrodnc.^ • 1^. By thi. conveyance tt .-• 

«,.,.eanHlthat the (overnment had Uken over L pro- u«.,. ,.,_^ 

p.r.yofthe ra.lroad. and a««umed the JiubilitieH of theT'f ** 

.o-apany underUking. U^ideH. to reimbun,., what mib-3!jS-X% 

bem had paid on their nhunti. ^'*' ^ *#' 



x'riberii had paid on their nharea. 
The agreement w«« ratified by the Quebtn, Act. 89 Vic. « 
- lhi« intervention wa« ronteated by the appellant«,u, 

.ll«gal. unconstitutional, an.l .. opj^ting no valid c^«,^ 

in the condition of the parties. > , —^ 

After evident taken on the whole «mw the in tt 

was dlBcontinued. ^^ 



On this itate of the caae and on th\ dvidJ 

triTTJ""* K T"^""'*"* **•' JudgmenVin , th««m 
W\ !**^^' ^^^"'■"'^y 't w«« tle«larod M^onWeHngthat 
^he plaintiffs (re.poridents) have proved thJt on the 17^ 

fca t mr;!"^' l!^': '""'^ '*^ *^'«"«^ *»^" conditions u^ 
fthat time motimb«,nt upon them under the by-law of the 
^unicipal Council of the County of Ottawa 'et forth in 
bo pleadings m this cause to be entitled to the delive y 

fh It?"^ !I ^"^""^^'-^^ ««*i™«<l by their protest of 
hat date .erved u,x,n the defendants (appellants) ; 

lomake suffic ent evidence in support of the allegations of 
hr second plea to entitle them to the maintenanL hTn^of 

' Onn^M ""'""Ik ?T"^"' <^PO"<i«^t«') action , 
Oonsidenng that plaintiffs (respondents) have snffi- 

fCja^r ^^i.r ^*/°''*^^'^**^«'' ptot^stofdateX : 
m Januwy, 1876, ph^ch damages the Court now 
ssessesat |100^; /. * ^^"uri now 

"Doth over-rale defendants' (appellants) said plea, and 

b oTi or ^r r ^'"^*^^^ (-pondents) th:s:^d 

.d clAf ' r ^- '"**?'*' *^«'^^ fr«^ **»" date and 
lid costs of suit as m a first-class action." • 

b„!/' J"^«?^^*' *1^« validity of which « brought in 

^ts are liable in damages outside and beyond the capital 
bia mterert of tb« debentures, which, in L,rdance wS 






f' ' -V 




Wi- 



% 






( Ir 





64 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



1S83. 



the conditions Of the by-law and of their subsciiption, H bills of ei 






h^^.:ii 



■f /.* 



<!o!^t?Ir/)itfiwn ^^^Y «;»idertook to delirer as the work progressed. 

u ofo. (Ill These consequential damages are claimed on the ground 
dQM'.To'io!^ that the default of the appellants to deliver the deben- 
tures caused injury to the respondents' credit, and dep|iy- 
ed them of considerable sums which they would liave 
received from the city of Montreal and in subsidy from 
tbe Government of Quebec. 
The appellants deny that any such damages are recov- 
y erable by law. " 

1 J„ _ The respondents on their part contend that interest for 

' delay is not the sole damage that the creditor can claim 

from his d.ebtor in case of then&n execution of an obliga- 
tion for the payment of a sum of money ; that there may 
be other causes of damages than the delay, and in SU9I1 
case the tribunal has the right to estimate and determine | 
the damage which the creditor actually suifers. 
To sustain this proposition they invoke arrets of the I 
>< courts in France in cases arising under art. 11'76 of thel 

■^ '<> Code Napoleon, which it is claimed is of the same purport I 

as 6ur art. 107t ; also the views of the jurists in jPranoe on[ 
the interpretation of the same article. They have likewise j 
cited one or two English authorities. 

I would here remark that ^e have no such rule here as I 
that which prevails in- England, of giving nominal dam- 
ages for a breach of contract although no actual dami^e I 
results or is proved. Whatever effect that might have on a J 
case like the present, nor do we follow a practice prevail- 
. ing in Frau^ce t)f awarding wha^ are termed " dommag&s fi\ 
interMs" for obstrupting legal recourse, as in the case of J 
making in bad faith an unfounded opposition to the exe-l 
Qution of a judgment. This rule accounts for some of the I 
French arrets where damages were given in bonsequencej 
of unfair obstruction opposed taa well fdunded demand;! 
others are based updn the circumstances of the case shew-f 
ing another legal ground for damages besides the mere] 
delay of payment. I find none strictly applicable to the] 
present case. The most appropriate of^he English author 
ities'is the case of the breach of an agreement to 



'v!»-''> 



^XiBod.^ijrkiviScsasi'^'u'ii^^^^ 






OOUET OF QUEENS BENCH. 



66 



8 are recov- 



bills of exchange to a certain amount in consideration of m '' 

ZTHrr''.'^"^'^"*^^ acceptance; but besides -Cdo 
that bills of ^change are expressly excepted from the ""*' * ""'* 
operation of art. 1077, an agreement to accept is one^of a#'Ar 
very special nature, and is to some extent L W^^e J'' ^•' '' * '' 

Althoughnot prepared to deny thitthbri may be a^e 

where the delay of paymen* of ;money ^ight poss^ . 

involve damages beyond the interest of the si wSld • 

1 seems to me it must be an exceptional ^e. a^ S 

the respondents could be entitled to the^pplicati^n ^ 
ottier than the general rule containedin art. 1077 irwould 
be incumbent on them to .how that there really ersted 
such a^ exceptional case recognized by- law, and that it 

iba^£rstt^^:rz" 

(appellants, see: ^J ^ the pretensions .of the 

Code 0. B. 0. art. 1077. 

1 Larombiere Oblig. on Art. 1153 C. N. p 565 ^fifi 
Arr6t de Caseation, 18 January. 1862 ' * 

Fouquet Besselievre d: Basile '- 

Pothier Oblig. Nos. 144, 170. 

6 Toujilier No. 264. ' 

I ^ Duranton No. 49. ' ^ ' 

'^Marcadg, art. 1163. ' 

Journal du Palais, 1853, Vol. 2 n 18 \^rM r»- x ' ' 

^enti^ed by Demolombe, Vol. 24, Na 6^1"''^ ''•^^^^ 

m^ iL^ it' ^"^^ «««5l to indicate that dama- 
iresiscan be obtained beyond interAs* tk« a x • ^^^ ^ 
ithe "Journal du PalX" ISsTll o ?^ " reported »^ 

e% where dai^^^'ekil^V^^t'''^'^^^^ ^ ' 
Mions, but thJ1^,^..^.t^--^ "^ ■ 

tWwii^the condonation w^-fon^'* would be ._, _ 
^ce caS^only by the dela^^pLm^ tL' '^!; ^ ^ 

^%a^mentianedbyDloloS^:,j;^ 



66 



MONTREAL LAW; REPORTS. 



I8s;t. 

Til. 

oomt<! il'Ottiiwa 

A- 

1m VAe. (iu 

(Oioiiiiii ilo for 

•lu M,. 0. & 0. 



m 



*1F^ 



'.'•>.,. ^^^^v»>-i'"v^-. 



/ 



''-^■' 



H 



execution of a contract was in question. ' 

Sirey, Table D6cennale Vo. Dommages-int^rftts, No. 21, 
1 Larombiere p. 6t^-6 (TO, No. 10. * ^ 

_J think the case is controlled by the Art. lOtt. I can 
» , See no sufficient reason for departing from the sense of the, 
text or excluding the present case from its opersitjloti. J 
think it would be extremely dangerous to do so ; it would 
be embarking on an unl4mited sea of expansion in the 
estimate of^damages which tbe law has wisely dosed,;' it 
,,wottli^"'be admitting of a latitude where the measure 
■ would be wholly arbitrary and the results iti some cases 
possibly oppressive. ^ 

T would be disposed ^to deny the respondenfS^ right of 
actioii ii^ the present case ; I would reverse the^ judgment 
of the Sni)erior Court and dismiss respondents' action. 
IlAMf4AY/ J. : — ^ 

This appeal gives rise to a question of some interest 
and some jttovelty. The County of Ottawa agreed to take 
• '200 shares in the stOek of the Company respondent, to pay 
for them by debentures bearing interest at s|x per cent.| 
\ on certain cpuditiopiB. These conditions wore compile 
with, but th^ Company,, on demand, tefused to deliver the 
debentures., 4; This appears to have der^ged th^ affait^J 
of the ComfiMiy respondent, and to have done the respon- 
deAt great damage. 'The respondent sued the appellant in 
damages, and was met fe^ a aemurrer, taking up the 
ground that this was an undertaking to pay money, and, 
that the only damage fb'r -the delay in the pajrmeut of{ 
money was interes t at th^^e^al rate, f 

The demurrer was disnnssed— we are not told why— -j 
but I think there is no difficulty in suggesting more tban 
one gobd reason for its dismissal. Tlj,e whole question j 
7^^ came up on the merits, and the learned J^dge in the Court I 
below awarded the respondent $100 daopiges. In doing] 
so he adopted a principle which was iuEdsted on by the 
learned counsel for the respondent before this Cou^t, and 
• w hich ha«upported by a very respectable array of fwitho- 
rity. It is this — that article lOtt C. C. only provided that j 
the damages for the " delay m the payn^eut of money con- 







COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



61 



€ 



sist only of interest, " etc, " ne consistent que dans Cint&ril " m- ' 
-and that therefore there jnay be other damages fof" the„„i-'i^!R;.«'« 
non-payment of money. It il'said this article is borrowed tl 7 
frAm Art. 1168 C. N., and that the writers under this article SS'S'^g^-aS' 
m Fran^ have held that there may be other damages than ' ' ^' 
■^interest where money has not been paid. It is proper to 
remark that the redaction of 1163 0. N. is very^ifferent 
from that of Art. mi CO. Art. ,1X68 is in thesrwords : 
" Dans les obligations qui se.boment an paiemen^^M'une 
^ertame somme, les dommages et int6r6ts, resultant du 
retard dans rex6cution, ne consistent jamais que dans la 
condamnation aux int6r6ts fix6s par la Ibi. " 

I do not, however, attac|i much importance to this 
difference of redaction. It seems to me to estafajiiaia dis- 
tinction almont inappreciable, and one which it is evident 
the Codification Commissioners did not sed. tlihey say 
pM8, 1st Rep:. "The section intituled, 'ofd^^es' 
" resulting from the ineiecution of obligations, contra 
articles numbered from 90 (96) to 98 (108), which, with 
" some changes <rf expression and difierence of ^anaa-^ 
' ^ent, embody tha rules contained in: the articles of the 

"French Code, numbered frpla 1146 to IIH and declare 
" the existing law. " 

If I have understood the meaning of the French writers 
cited by respondent, it is this: that' article 1168 C N 
limits the damages apsifig from'the delay to pay money - 
to legal interest only, when^ the obligation is limited to 
thepayment of money; but that when the payment of* 
money is portion of.another substdntial co^tracUten afi 
the damages resulting indirectly -frqm the delay can be 
exacted. This is ingenious, but very forced, and it is 
absolutely inadmissible under 4he rSdaction of our article 
1077.' The opportunity of setting the legal mind astray 
on this question arises from the weakly pedantic and false 
doctrine of article 10o8 C. C., which is obviously incom-' 
patible with Art. 10Y4 to 1075 C C. It is borrowed, WiUi 
vanations, from Arts. 1182 and 1183 G. N.,^hich,in their 
tttm, are even more forcibly in contradioCon with" Arts 
1150 aiid 1161 G. N. Whatever ma^ be the origin- of ' 

: -2_! '. A. ■ . ^ ■ .. 



■.>> 



/tell 



*'■ 


m 


1 


- . 


iKfl 


ff '. 


r ■ _ 


H 


1 




n 


ii 



■ 'I 



@ 



■;-%-- 



. I 



\ 



— r-r- 

t . ■ 

' A ■ ; ■■ 



-\ 



^' 




3: 



1883. 

La Corp. 
Q0int< d'Oi 
& 
LaOie 
ohemin de 
-do M., 0. 



(la 






1 

V. 


\1 

\ 






|: 


j 


§;;■ 


\ 



■ **" 



68 



MOMTRliAIi LA.W BBFOBTS. 



/-7 



the idea which vm expressed by the applioAtton of the' 
t^'J,. three degrees of comparison to CM//>a, we hive the advan- 
tage of knowing that ibSS 0. 0. was adopted to subisti- 
"^o! tute a new basis for damages, under gai$e of re-|8serting 
the tru6 principles of law, Ist Rep., p. :|i8. Hp^' far the 
omission of the square brafkets is juflitifiablie it is jiot 
necessary now to enquire. 

I am therefore of opinion thjtt the failure to pay money 
at the proper time cdn only give rise tp the immediate aUd 
direct damage! resulting therefrom, and which are limited 
by law to the legal interest on the sum. " ^"', ,-^ r. 

But the next question is; whether/tl%e obligati6A to pPe 
debentures bearing interest^ at 6 pe» cent is an i^bligation , 
to pay money ? Strictly, speaking it As not ; and I tUink we 
can hardly say i^s an'equivalentf, as when commercial 
paper is given. Now tie rule of Art. 1077 is , one of posi- 
tive law, jand an excep^^iun to the general rtile of article 
1073 C. '©•If Art. 1073 Had stood alone, and without Art. 
1077, damagesi^for the d^ay to ])ay money iwould have" 
been the loss the creditor has su itained. I din therefore 
to confirn^ Iv^hink these ^emar u dispose ot the whole 
argument^ presented at the bai , but a hew view is pre- 
sented by the dissent, which it becomes important to 
consider, in order that it may no^ be supposed we have 
overlooked it. 

J^fore doing so, I would, however, remark that reference 
was made to what I said in Ansetl Sr Hie Bank of Toronto ; 
but it will be remembered that the judgment went on the 
merits, and that I only put as a question whether that 
case was not within article 1077 as ^eing equivalent to 
the payment of money. 

I understand the argument of the leaded £hief Justice 
to be this : 

The damages sought to be recovered ^e specially for 
loss of credit, loss of prospective gains ana\ interest ;, thai 
on such a declaration no geheral damages could be given, 
not even nominal damagiss ; that there was no such thing 
as nominal damages in the French law ; that oy that law 
all damages were reftl, and that the ^nominal oamMres of 






!i^- 
%-"■ 



■****>- 






^-v**/ 




S'v 



Mi 



^f ' 



V ^» ,^ 



OOUBT OP QUEEN'S S^HobC 






59 



V^ 



1883. 



Ithefinglishlaww^reafarthiiigonthe shilling; It was' issa. 
Umher said that in England loose speculative opihioris as A^,03f/|;.lu . . 
1^ to probable gams were considered as inconclusive and too ^ct 1?" 
remote. It was also said that^there could be n6 damages 3Wo\V' 
by way of interest, for the fietion was taken 6ut on the , . ^ ' **• 
19th June„and ihe mise en demeure to deliver the bonds • \ ^ 
was only on the 19th January, so that interest on the 
bonds was not due till July. ... 1 

»I quite agre^ with th6 Chief "Jusiice, that if ^e Civil 

Code 18 to be taken as embracing all the priicipl^ of 

damages known to the French law these damagi are not 
stwtainable ; but it is evident that the Articles on ^amagei ' 
m the Code are miserably insufficient. " I'do not see how 
any one who has read Pothier aud,the old authc^rs on the ^ - 
subject can arrive at the conclusion that there, were m ' 
Mominal or exemplary 'damages under the old Wench la# 
when positive proof of los>>yas iippossible. At ill e^hts 
it 18 pretty late in the day to set up stch » dodtrihe, for ^ 

we have here been giving exemplary damages,! damages 
estimated by the Court, and nominal d«&agea, ^ver since 
I have known anything of the mdtter. I neverlheard the • 
nght questioned befor^, except byVa once well-known ' ' 
citizen, who made it a charge againgl Judge A^win tlitfl 
he had given some small damages as reco^itiU of the - 
righ^.of action, although no real damage was fiositively 
proved. I don't think the criticism produced £uch im- ' v 
pressidn. If nominal daihages can onlj^he a f^tifog or - 
a shilling, then nbininal damages for 'personid wrongs ' • r 
cannot carry costs: (478 C. C. P.) If, agaiii, tSe debe#^ - , • 
I tares are considered as money; or equivalent 4 money, ^^ ^ - 
what has been allowed, $100. is fat less4hah tht interest ^^ ■ 
O114112.000 from lYth Jan-uafy to i9th June. ^ say tiia£. ' ' ' 
interest as damages, could not be due because tie interest 
Ion the debentures was not. due till July appetoJ to me as 
a fallacy. The interest on the debentures cotUd] ^ever be 
due, because they never were issiied. Ou* article only 
says that interest is th^'measure of damagp M noa-pay- 
ment of money. ► It does not surely mean fh^ tie damage 
may not be asked for with the daJhiind ^ 



cM. 




J* 



*.. :■■■ 



r.\ /■ ,: 



\\^'.. 1 



1 




m 



60 i * ^^4 ' MONTBEAL LAW REPOTS. 



.*"'• It has Skli^ been said that if tl|k^ judji^tnent is jrood Jit iii 

[^^r&i" foT tot) littl^^' Irhat is hai|ily a fctpttud of appeal in iho 



HI. 



LaOicda mOttttii of , th#:|>aT;t)r condoned. Mjt i^eemg to n|e thlfttho 
dt'Si/ix^^dli^^i^eiit is i|ig)ily eq||tablo anijust, a^ :^} porUy . 



m 



;'^ 



lande^ith the law, and Nk^ 



m 





is t^4j 



nnioti' 



tjli^iiii<^ty of the C|>^rt. Th4^ f^^ffm wilI/'«HKirbfore hV> 

. ^ith^' costs. : ■ :* k' i.,. . , '^ ii '^\.\ 

Jirtia«^eiit c< 
me ^ fLmard, for apipef 
spondeiit^ f ** 



> 



', v|r\ 19'^ovembre 188^. ] 



>1 



^Si>i^^ -^1)^6)^1^ Bamsay, Messier et ORpeSj JJ^ 

^'^^n^'HiNli^ HOGAN./ * ^\ 
(ZI»niiM«;ife^ en Cour Inf&rieure), ' 






;A 



V" ET^ " 









* / 



(D^enderesse m Cow Jrtf6rieure), 



.; '' "^d^p^^ — Contrffmqbles — Promesse de verity. ^ J 



' Wn,«^i^i|i 4 .novembre 1873 C. obtuit du gouvernement fidd^ral une pr(>-^ 
'4& yenie d'un immeublW.sita^ dans la oiiA de MonMal, dont' 
ion ne devait . lui ^tre donn^e qile boub oertaiilefi oojndi- 
Jads teentionn^ A Taclle. ie,25 octobre 1875 C. .Vdldit et trans- 
ISrta & I'appelant tpus ses droits r^ultant (|e i& dite promesse (jfe* 
vente, Les conditions stipiil^cis ne fui^t rt'mpiies <%t ut posseasion, j 
. de rimineuble ne fu( donnfe &[i'apt)elanCqtie le ler novembre 1876, | 
et if n'obtint son titce que le i noventbr^ ix r61e annuel de cotisa-/ 
tion Iwiir .I'lmnfe civique oo aMfcn oant le ler mai 1876 fnt j 
et d^|po|s6 an buroaa da tr djj^f le la nH le 28 septembre" 
sor tee rdle I'appelant ^t^^pHntio^ng '<>pQime oontriboab] 
I'imoieabte; en quesUon. '; f^'"'. ^ • 

Jifci :—lo. QuQ^ taxes manicip4|deB dans la cit^de Monti^ n| 
py piyabiiHonr par jour, mjia goiit:U»divuiiblM, et ■ont doaa i 



V 



. \. 



% 



;'v. 



■ ;•>'■ , 



V 



TTi'J-^stRiP"- 




fc'^^^f^ 




»^BT <». QBEEITS BENC3H. 



61 i 

toeweurde lMmmeableBuj^4cotiB»tion an tempe 1884. 

lawenu prbprWtaire de I'immeuble en que»- T?" 

. .,. H»»fe^l87fl,etquelegouverneii.o«t fM^ralena^W dtMonliti. 
^ • le pK>i»i4taire'^au'ft cojtte dattt. 

,8oKlao ]^r tonii«q^il«iirrea prbpri^t^s du gouvernoment n'6tant pas su- 

& •'^''®"'*"*^^P"j#n'<-'P*l<». I'iminmible en queatlon n'^tait pas sua. 

^If^SMBr *¥ '^ '^ "epternbio 1876, date de la mibo en vigueur 

•JItTS^*^*'""" P°^' I'wnW olviqwj) commencant le ler mai 

asTft.^ «^:>*PMq^ition 8ubB4queBte de Hmmoublo par I'appelant no 

--»« . ; v^il?"*'*^"*''^® pour auoune partie des cotisationa pour 

M^i»te/aitqnel'a[^Wtavaft««gbflg6ettax<5«nr le r6Ie de cette 
ann^, et qa'il ne s'en 6tait pas plamt de la manidrp r<''gl<5e par la 

eharte de la dW, nepouvait pas le rendre oontribuable pour oea taxes. 

poEft)N, X 0. :-i ^* 

{Le 4 novembre 1S18, par acte de cette date, il est inter- 
^vem une piomesse d6 Vente entre le gouvemement de la 
Puissance dxf. Canada et Maurice Cuvillier, par laquelle 
le gouyernement a prbmis de vendre et Cuvillier d'ache- 
! ter une,propri6t6 8itu6e au'coin des rues ^t- Jacques et St- 
r Pran9oi8-Xavier, daiis la ville de Montreal, alors occup6e 
fpar I'ancien bureau de poste, Cuvillier ne devant avoir 
1; possession que lorsqae le gouvernement occupejait le nou* 
veau bUTea,u de poste projet6, et sous la condition que le 
I* gouvernement acheterait le terrain occup6 par la Banque 
I du Peuple et y construirait un nouv^u l^feau de poste. 
rle 25 octobre 18t5 Cuvillier a vendu, c6d6 et transports 
*»i I'appelant teus ses droits et intferfits r6sultant dela dite 
promes^e de vente. Cen'estque vers le ler novembre 
18'76^ que I'appelani a obtenu possession de I'anciejHInv 
I reau de poste, et le titre n'a 6t6 j^assfe que 1^ 4 noj^mbre 
Le fdle d^ cotisatiofi pour l'ahn6|^«Wi|Sto(!air«^^^ 
1876 a etg^6p686 au bureau du t^rSr de la ci^fet 1^^ 
^ue M8 septembre IBl^.jTil appert par cef^mque 
Welant a 6t6 cotis6 comi^ propri6t^r^ du terrain en, iw- 
liestion i^ur une somme de |t20. Sur le refus de I'a^ :^. 
pelant de; payer cetttesomme, I'intimfe a fwt 6maner un6* • 
8ai8ie-ex6cution coriffe s^s meutfles, et I'appelant s'^t >; 
j^urvucontre cette saisie par un bref . d'injonction enfdi ' 
" ^ant la"cit6 de H n s peu dgft sfiH prnri^cW^s. Dan 



#• 






^ ■ 



^\ 



.t**; 



'A. ■>♦■ 




i^' : .,%|^- ■.^. •* 



62 



MONTREAL LAW RlEdlrfB. 'i, 



r . 

do 




I:: . i 



I > 



III 'i 



^^ pour le brefd'injonotion Tappfllant relate les faits axis- 
^T" mentionlnfeBi ot soatient qu» lo gouvoruomont 6tanr rest^ 
mntitei. pi^oprifitaij'o ^e. I'iinmeublo en queBtion jusqu'au 4ltto- 
vembro 1876/ et les propri6t68 du gonvemement 6tant^ar 
PActe de I'Am^riquo Britanniquo de 1867, exemptes de 
taxes mttnicipaleB, la cotisation impo86e le 28 8eJ)tembre 
1876 n'l) pas pu frapper cet immeuble ; et que, la taxe 
6tant "indivisible et annuelle, n'est exigible que du. 
lipfij^re ftu temps de limpositi6n de la4;axe. 
La Oour ^up6rieLure a bien interpr6t6 1'eflfet de la pro- 
mess^ de yejatti^du gouyornoment k Cuvillier, et ajugC- 
f^uo Hflj^ah, cessionnaire fte c« dernier, n'est devenu pro- 
prit'itaiite de riiumeuble que lorsque les conditions ptipu- 
Ifees ottft^t^ remplies, o'est-A-dire <juand Hogan a 6t6 mis 
©n possession et a obtenu son titre le 4 novembfe. , : - 
'. Mais le savant juge a^cid6 sur I'awtre point que la 
iaio est divisible et s'acquiert jour par jour, et il a en 
ponsfcquence cassS le bref d'iiyonction ot condaranfl'apgsi- 
Jant ^ payer la proportion des.taxes pendant -son occupii- 
tion, c'est-A-dire depuis le ler novembre 1876 jnsqu'an 
lermail877. • ,. * « ^^^^ ' " 

' Nons no imrtageons pa^ cetto opinion, et nous sommee 
unanimes h dfecidtjr que la taxo est aniiuello et indivisible, 
et qu'ellQ.est duo par celui qui est propri6taire lors d« 
I'impos^on de la taxe. Cette question a d6j4 6t6^46cid6e 
plusieurs fois dans ce sens par les tribunaux du Haut 
Canada, et le praicipe paratt 6tre bien 6tabli. Lorsqn'une 
propri6t6 est vendue au shfirif dans le courant de l*?nnee 
et apr^s la raise en vigueur du role de cotisation, je ne me'^ 
rappelle pasi qu'on ait jamais pr6tendu fai^payetune pro- 
portion des taxes par I'adjudicataire. ^acquisition subsfi- 
quente ne pent *n aucune mani^re rendre Tacqufireurres- 
ponsable de la taxe impos6e avant qu'il soit devenu pro- 
priaaire. Dans le cas actqel, le propri6taire lors de I'im- 
posifbn de la ta:^ n'6tait pas sujet A cotisftion, et par 
consequent la municipalite ne pouvait r6dlanjer aucune 
taxe pour cett^ apn^e. Pour ces motifs nous croyons que 
lejugemeatde labour Sup^rieuredoi|6treinfirm6. 



"V 



^ 



■« - 



I ■^' 



f -- -■- - _ ■ • ■ 




•. ♦ 



Wf 



^^Tlfa^ QUEEN'S BENCH. ** 



68 



Ramsay, J.:-* ^ " 

I concur in the roasons given by the chief justice. It "T" 
seoms to me that the whole question tums on whether *. i(iJu«W> 
the deed from the government to CuviliieTtra-nsferred the 
proper^ to hiiji, or was only a prtmesse dq venie inot fol- 
lowed by tradition. The Court below hbWs, "and I think " . 
rightly, that it was merely a ^promem de vente^ and that ' \ 
when the tax was imposed it was stiH the proportyof the ' 
govornment. '- " j. ^ 

But a curious pretentit)n is put forward by the cor- ' 
poratio'h respondent. It is .contended that the property I ... 
being taxed in the name of appellant, he did not"complain 
within the proper' delay ; that this delay Js final and V 
th^t he cannot complain now. Not very long ago we had 
to deal \^ith the pretention that under this law a man 
who ^^as assessed upon property which did not belealg to ' ' 

him could ndtcomplaiii.' This is the other extreme. " But 
the Court is not disposed to rush into, either. " , V ' 

Wedid not hold that the man altogether Improperly *^' 

tajed coiild hrfl complain, and we cannpt hold that the 
impo8itit)n of a tax on property not liable to taxation ' 
beqpme8,valid. because the person named as owner becomes 

I JP subseiiuentfy. ' In other ^ords, Mr. Hogan is no more ' . 

[•liAbl^aU if a stranger had acquired the property from 
the government. . ' V . 

-■■■..-.«-. • . -, « 

•■■"*■ , - ■ ;■ " ." ft -.,".'■ V ■, - . 

;c»088,j.:— ■ ':■;-. \;. \: .• ^:, /^'': ' ■ .'' ..,.:• 

To my mind the liability^ to taxes wai determined by 
the delivery of the property. So lohgafc^he Crown held 
the nr^perty for its use it -was not liable fo taxation. .The 
^epositof theassessofVroll is the culminating exercise ' . 
4f the .taxing power by which it becomes ^ectire. Iti ' 
deposit could not aflTeci property which -was iiot taxable 
being then still by th^'^erms of thjTtitle and de facto 
|»s8<,^|ed by the' Crown. The^lMfeeding, as far as " 
So^^ was cplicerned,.was an'abimR nullity. Nosuch 
_tf could affect *Ji«^ropertyy^tiI anotheK^assessment 
^f» made, and a roll depoaked sfter the pr^rty had 
beeoirie ta36able. V ^ .. f' * . ' 

B f, - ■ . <t — : -L . ■ ■ 

i:,. j: > -'■■ # 






.. / 



...v'^ 



.^v*\*v>v>\-*|^^: 



-^ 






f,. 





I* « 



64 



M0MTH1E4I. tAW RSFOBm 



llofMI 

lie MontnM. 




1.08 >aivftntl 



'* Ltt Cour ^ 

" (JonaiUoriiig th«gbf jnemorauduin of ag?cH?9i 
4th of Deoombor iWi, tho govnrnmunt of C 
mined 'to »!>ll toy^aurioo OuviUwT the property 
St. .TameN Hiid gt Fran9oi8 Xavlor 
as tho Montreal pOHt-ofHoo, in ctMe 



ant 



Btret; 



rniftoi 



\pf th« 
pro* 
ler of 
cupiwl 



-M 



purohaso th,« jwoperty of La Ban^&o du P«^iiplo to build « 
now post-on^ building, and on condition that theintoml- 
^ yvillier should onljr got possossion after 
us compWedankthogovVnment had 
ofit;^ " V 

ingthat the goveri^mdiit of Oanada Te- 



ed pun 
J tho ne 
obtain 
^ " An 





tained ppesOpaiqn of the said ptopertyi up to the first day 
of Noy,;^mW IStS^^nd that the respondent as the a^nt 
came of*l\f«urice OuYillier, only beoame oropriefcor of the 
. same Uy i^rtm? of Mo deed of „ sale pass^" on the fourth 
day ofjW^vomboi-^ IHlti ; 

V " 4M^»8idyin^ that when Ihe assessment roll foi- the 
.^ijr <>WBEotttrea(l font^ofvio year of 1876 Was completed 
ori^the 28t|h Se^jleiaberiSfe, Iho appellant was neither 
^tho propritelor/ the occupant^ %or in possession of said redv 
efetttte, bujtj that the same wu^ oc^^pnM ^d possessed by I 
Ihe Doraiuioir Government as the pr^ricWkor thof'iibf, and 
tKjitaaid property was ^«gnpfc;|feftm rauj||ciparttt^ ; 
y>A.nd considering thaHJie apfTeirant Was n6t liaWe for 
^ly taxes on. said property, and that his namewas wrong; 
faily ins^^rted in the said agftHuient r^l. far the,yeaij|p78 



as. the pmprietor of said properiy ; 



■ v.*.'*'"- ■ 



id considering thatthe muttioipaltaifialimpose^on 

)-1mp^yable by 
de Jime they are 



.realjiitate in the city. pCMontfeal . 
"ITthe oWDtersAli^ occupiers wthereof^i^^elBi 

l,5»;impoied<^-^f.;: /■»";"■■■;; \' " '.W^^ 

■--¥-■■ »' An^^nslierlttg-that 4eVppeU% w|io was neitBer 



r.^"*** th«|||iier, &or occupier a|8^^ no* bound 

* ., ' 'f „ **? l|^^<^y< ^®*i*'«^^^ t% assessm^t so illegally imposed 
' " "'tjn iiMd property whes it was exempt froiai taxation ; 

'?i And. considering that his .subsequent acquisition of" 
said property^doesaiot deprive him of the right to com 



V- 



. • 



4« 



1 « 



*■. I 



"Hr^ .* 



^i 




/ 



*» 



Qonnir Of (jtiiBRira BENnn. 



65 / 



'plain ofthe Illegality of inch mnenBtnent and to dttmaud 
j that tho Uflcorder nhoftld be prohibited from levying the 
Hiaottnt of Haid mnnifiipal tax ; > 

" And ^considering that thereji error In the judgment 
I .ipwled from, to wUrth;, judgrai«nt rendered by the 
auj.erior Oourt at Montreal, 6n the 16th day of June I88S, 
I quashing the writ of prah\|>ition in this cause issued ; 
' Doth reverse "Ao. , . ' \ 

r*'/ I * « . , Li Jugement infirmfi. 

Ju,l^l/^ 4. Branchaud, pSur I'nppelant. 

Hmnmnf, O.R., ^ FAhier, pour I'intimfte. 



\(mti 



J. 



2ft novemhre 1884. 

DotttON, t. 0.ri^HAY,'TESSIEuiS0ii«,HH & IJabY, JJ. 

P.^i4. DORIQN, 

m Cow InfMmre,) 

Appelant ; 



# 



at..- 




J. B. T. DORION, " . 

', ((Demanded en Cmr InfMeure) 

-''.,- -^ ' ■■ ■ ^' ■. * ' ■-,. " IntimI 
^^mS Cbmpte^Motion pour rejet de ChmplB-ProcMure. 

i;coft>.la Que lonqu^un d^fendeur poursulvl pour un <5tat do crompto de la 
I K« .on d'un .mmeuble et pour una i«ouno r^Iam^, sur la v^i'tode 
cet mmeuble en vertu d'une convention sp^ciale. plaide au premier 
ohof de I'action qu'il n'a jamais 6i4'i^ en domeSe 5e 31 

TarX;^ ?d*^^?l*' °* '*'* **« ^J«« «"' motion eomme 



^^^ 



Ilonn 
•I* li|t]ii(ri<it|. 



#^ :' 




• i^'.T' 



66 



mONTREAL I^W BETOKTii 



' Barioa 
Doftmi' 



t. 



L 



Milt tvnir Ktirunn coiinoKit^ «vnr l« gfwtioii <!« U pmprMU^ <lnnt nn 
dttniaiKiu <iitii|tU> : <iitu< <|iiMitluu jiu pouvMnt Hn dlacUUto et (bScUUe 
(|iio aiir nil (l^hat itti «HiinpUi. 

DoRION, J. 0. : — ■^ 

L'aimtilant oat |>ourHuiri par l'intim(^i en roddition do 
comptti^ La d6olar8tioiti alldgfue qae rintim6 6tftit pro- 
pri^-tairo ot tm \nMun^ngioii dos deaz-tiers, ot UHufruitior 6a 
gTov(^ do HubHtitutioii m vi» darant du troisidme tiorH, 
d'unu maiMou litu^t; sur la rau Notro-Diimu, daiis la vill«> 
d« MonU^al, ot quo depuis uno vingtaine d'aii^6oa \'&\)- 
pulaiit a g6r6 ot admiiiiHtr6 coite propri6t^i pour lui 
ou quality d'agent »t' proourenr, ,ot en a retir6 toua Ion 
loynrH dont il n'a jamais nmda compto i\ rintim6. Ia 
declaration allHguu,jeH^rM quo, par acto du 28 novombre 
1879, rintim6 a venda k llippelant ceite propriety 
Bu prix de |8,600, dont deux tiers payabloa k I'inti- 
m6.de la manidre stipul^o an. dit acte, et Tini^rdt sur 
le troiHidmo tierH payable 4 rintim6, sa vie durant ; et que 
par nn autre ac;te pa8s6 entre les parties le mdme jour 11 
fnt convenu, lo. que la dite vente ne devait en aucune 
mani^re pr£judioier an droit de TintimS de se faire rendre 
oompte des loyers jusqu'alors perfus par I'appelant ; et 2o. . 
que si I'appelant vendait cetto propri6t6 h un prix plus 6le- 
v6 quecolui qu'avait pay6 Tintim^, dans lo cours d'un mois, 
il devait lui en rendre compte^et lui remettre le surplus 
k sa demande. L'intim6 ajouCe que I'appelant a vendu la 
propriety pour $14,000 dans lo mois qui h snivi les con- 
ventions pr6cit6es, mais qu'il a, dans lo but de frauder 
rintim6, diH%r6 d'on passer contrat jusqu'au 12 avril sui- 
vant. L'intim6 reclame par consequent les deux-tiers de 
ce surplus de $6,000, soit $4,000, et I'interfit de I'autre 
tiers, soit $2,000, sa vie durant. Les conclusions sont pom 
nne reddition de compte de la gestion de I'appelant pen- 
dant une vingtaine d'ann^es, et pour le paiement du dit 
surplus de la vente ^e I'immeuble en question. 

A cette action I'appelant plaide qu'il a toujours et6 prit 
k rendre compte ; que I'intim^ a toujours 6t6 son d6bitear; 
que cette action est rexatoire, attendu que TintimS n'> 
jamais 4emand6 de comp|« k l^g^p^lant qui n'a jamais 



V ■ 




* 


- 




« 








321 


f 


E uk 


/ 






m 


mtm 






* 


1 




|ji|k 




« 




■^^■k' 


mn^m-^mtm'.--'- 


L ^ 









(T 






^ OOtTWr OF QWIWTR RRTfCH. ^ ' ^^ 

wfui<! d'en rondrn, mdii an ooiitroiro a tonjourg d/)iii»4;tin 
rtglument ; ot rapiHilant produit un rorapto avwi ion plai- 
(loy.»r, raontrant urn baUiu^i ou avanoe do compt« on 
f»v«ur du roiidant do |27,108.10. 

Qtiant au deuxiAino ohof do I'action. rapl)olaiit tii« A 
Tintimfi toat droit dani loa bftnf)H.M)« qu'il a pu fairo, 
ot ajouto que li rintim6 avait co droit, il ne pourrait 
r6«;lamer qu'uno aomm^ de |8,48« qui eat plua quo com- 
pfliiH^o par la balanoo du oompto produit on faveAr d« 
I'appolant. Lea tioncluaiona de ce plaidoyor domandont 
qa« le compto produit aoit d6oIar6 bon et valable ; quo 
l'intim6 soit d6clar6 redevoir k I'appelant la iiomnie do 
♦27,198.19; et que Taction aoit d6bout6e avoo dfipena. Co 
plttidoyer est iTuivi d'un© dfifonso en fait. Le 2 juin 1882, 
avantquo la cause fut inscrito pour ehqufito, lo doraan- 
dear intimfi a pr6«ont6 uhq motion pour fairo rojetot^lo 
Icorapte produit par lo d6fendeur, pour lea raisons sui- 
vsntes :— • * 

lo. Parce que le dfifendeur nie au demandour le droit 
do iwrtor la pr6sente action dont il demando lo renvoi et 

I df'Jioutft. 

2o. Paroe quo lo dfifondour plaido encore qu'il no doit 
point compto au demandour du proHt qu'il a fait sur la 
vonto do I'immouble en question. 

3o. Parce quo la'Oour doit prononcer sur ces deux points 
pr«:jadiciollement k la production d'un compto incomplot, 
|8uivant le demandour, et k la contestation d'icelui. 

4o. Parce que le dit €ompte est irr6gulier dans sa forme 
et uon accompagn6 de pieces justiBcatives. 

5a Parce que le dit compto n'ost pas dans le chapitre 
des dC'penscs, un compte des d6pensos au styot de la pro- 
pn6t6 en question seulement, comme dans te chapiti 
recettes, mais comprend une foule d'autres afMi 
tinctos et sfipkrtes, sans connexit6 aveti la prfisMte „«- 
mande, sans que le dfefendeur so charge des recet^es^'cor^' 
[respondantes qu'il a faites d'autres biens du d6fendeur. 

La Oour Sup6rieure a acco^jcette motion pour les 
|rai8ons suivantes u-"--——'^—' - ' -..-^^^^•■-r -^— ^^— - -* — 
" Consid6nint que la dite motion du demandeuriBst suf- 



Doria* 

. •■> 
Oorliw. 



.4 



--.tT"^ 








1884; 

Durion 
ot . 
Durion. 



• '- m f, -.u 




69. MO?jTfe|lAt tAW REPORTS. *,. 

«. • ■'■ ' ■ ■ I ' > !«^ ■ - 

" fisamme^t appuy^e par les raisons y meutionn^es en 
" premier, quatrieme eli cinquieme lieux, savoir : 1q. Eu 
'* 4utant que le d6tendeur nie au demandeur le drdit de 
" porter la pr6seiite action dont il demaiide le renvoi et 
" d6t)out6 ; "'4o. Eii autant que le compte prod\iit par Id 
" d6fendeur est irregtiUer dans sa forme' et non accompa- 
" gni&de pieces justificatives ; et ^o. P-arce que le dit 
" oompte n'esli pas daiis le„ chapitre des , d'epeiises, un 
" compter des"d6pen8e^ au suj^t de la propri^te en quos- 
" tion ^eulement' conim^ dans le ehapitre des •recettt'ss, 
Jamais compVend un«} foule d'autres allalr«s distinctes ot 
'" sepatees, sans CQnnexite avec ja presfent^^demande, ot^ 
"sans que le defendeur se chafee de8*Vet;ettes corr^spon- 
" dantes qu'il a fajtes d'autfes mens du demandeur.** . " 

' C!esfr de- ce jugeiheut que le demandeur se plaint, etnous I 
avons a examiner Jlcs raisons alK'gu^es'Habs la motion e^ 
maintoi^es par le jugeiWent. Quknt a la ptemiere laisoS, 
qlii'i>8t basee fjuv-le fait qtic lo de^encleui' nie au deman- 
deut tout droit d'ac^dlS et deinande le d^bout^ de laon 
actioii, tout en prodtuisaiit un compt^avisa son plaiwbytr, 
nous la trouvons lnsuffisantil^ OdmWb on t*a vu,' il'y a-| 
deux chef(j(>41'actipn du "demandeur.. tjepreiniet dedttande 
un compi©;etie second feclanie une somme due en vertu 
d'une conventibii spec^ale. , Le dS^taideuV plaide h Ten- 
contre du ijremier chef qu'on he liil a jamais dema;i^d6 do 
compte, et qu'il a toujours d6sif6 un reglement,^TU.que le 
dteili3,ndeUT lui»est ,endett6. II produit donC un dompte, 



. car quoiqu'il nie au deihandeur le droit d» Tactionner 
comme. il I'a fait, il lui yeconnalt le droit "d'avdir^im 



compte. Si lei3 alle^ues, du. plaidoyer, sur ge point :$DQt 
vrai^ — si loQcraipto n'a jamais e]t6 demand^, et si ledejlftan* 
deurdoit aud6fendeut— -Paction est vaxatoire, et le -defen- 
deur a- raisbu d'en demander ftrrenvoi, tout en nroduisaut 



son compte. Quant a I'autre chef de I'aotion, il est evi- 
dent que s'il eijt^fjpTaitisi que I'allegue le d6£endeur, qn'il 
ne doit rien AiwpBfiandear sur la vente de sa maison, cette 
partie'de I'actJon est 6gale^n«]»tr^i^l fondee &t doit ^ttiif^] 
_debout6e. 

t» seconde l:ai86ii suf TiquelTe Te iu s'appuie ei 



■0. 




\ :'r 






,1 K 



•■1^ 



)»"," >■ 



^^ 



OOURl^ OF QHEBITO ,BENC!B. 



69 



Dorion 

at 
Borkni. 



-1 ■>« 



quo le compte est irrfigulier dans-'sft forme et ^on accom* 

pagn6 de pieces justifio^tives. Nous ne pouvous' pas 

declarer ce coiripte irregulier quant t la formt). II con- 

tient des chapitres de reoettes, de reprises et de d6pen8e8; 

et une recapitulation, qut le rend tres facile k comprendr^, 

et susceptible de d6bat. Quant k I'absenoe de certaines 
:.piece8 justiticatives, le savant juge ne parait pas avoir 

'reuiarqufe que le demandour a »bandoun6 co moyen pa* 

une dfelaration i cet offet au bas de sa motion pour faire 

rejeter le comptp.' • .. ' '\ *iil 

: ^ La derniere raison sur laquejl^ repose le jugelnent no 

nous parait pas mieux fondefe. La' pretention de Tintimfi 

est que Tappelant, en rondant compte de 'bh gestion d'un 

immeuble particulier/ne peUt faire eutrer'daiis le chapi- 

tre des d^penses que«ce qq'il a d^peij86 pour la propfi6t6" 

eihquestion, et il sa plaint de ce que le rendant compte a 

mtroduit dans ce •'chapitKi^^une foule d'items qui sont 

S4ins'connexit6 avec I'immouble en question. 

'L'appelant^elifOJid avec Vaison que s'il a collects les 
loyers.de' cet itom^ble .'et' employ6 jVgent i« payei 
dc8.billet8pnd^8jugementBu6url'intiW, il a certaine^ 
mentleA^itd'&tre^d&^harg^'aT4nt,.etde faire figur'er 

ci's d^p^^es da|S ^on compte. . Autre est la qu^^tion de . 
savoirs'Uafait fees^^nrses ou'ViJ les a faits^vec d'au- 
tres receltes qne ot^jg^ ssttt mentionnees^tl compte. 
-Mais il ^st 6Vident qul5^'ne pent 'fitre diacute que sur' • 
uu debat de compte, -On remar^uefa que c'est avant . 
I onq'hMe, et sur motion.qtie I'intime veut faire reieter. le . 
compt^.' , • . •' ' J 

II n'y a rien d'all'figue ihx de prouve qui fSsse -voir que 
rappelant ait ».la gestion d'atfcun autre. Hien de 
Imtime, ou quH ait jamais eoll(}ct6 ou p'erfu d'autVes"* 
^montants que ceux qui pToriennent de rimmeujae en 

'qu«ition. .iParcoMequfljlttoi^mi^^sd'opinioii.^uele -. 
gpmpte est bien rendu et ^ue- le jugement de la- Oour • v 

Superieure doit 6tre infirml. ' ~ '*''■' i 

: Le jugemWt de la Cour est r6dig6 dans les termes sai- '•' ' 
.yajits:/ ^ *■ . . ~ - 

">XaX)oiir^^ ^-'-■^-- '"'-'^ -— -^--^x^..^ 



-^ 



«v 



^ 



•V. 






t 



«r 



'V 

4^' 









J 



. 'Jt 



'^ 



M 



MONTBEAL LAW EEFQBTS. 



norh>h 
Doriun. 



/ 



J 



^ 



'vr 



.,■1 "', ? 



9^- 



■y^ 



" OonBid^rant que rintim^ demandeur eii Oour de pre- 
miere iustauce, demaude par soil action : lo. ttn comptQ 
dosSoyers et revenue d'uno maison que I'appelant d6fen- 
'^deur en Cour de premiere instance a per9us pdur lui ; 
'2o. le payement d'une somme de quatre mille piastres 
pour l^a part del|.profit8 quo, suivant une convention k cet 
effot, I'appelant dev^t lui remettre dans le<5a8 ou il ven- 
.drait^eti^ maison dans le cours d'un mois, au-delA dn prix 
que i'lutim^ la lui avait, vendue, savoir k unprix.pluB 
6leve que la somme de huit mille piastres V 
; " Et consid^rant qu<? I'appelant a offert par son excep- 
ttbn perenftptoire le coriipte demands par Taction, et que 
par CBS conclusions il a demands acte de la production de 
ce compte et qn'il a '*d6crar6 que rintim6 lui 6tait rede^ 
vable d'une somme ide $2'7,198.19, et qu'il a, en outre, par 
la^ni^me exception contests la demande de I'intim^ de 
la -somme de $4,000 formant In second chef de isa declara- 
tion ;• ,"'''.. . T. u,:J' ' ^' ■ 

^ " Et cousiderant que Tintim^ /<l^mand^ par sa motion 
du 2 juin 1882 que le compte produit en cette cause p^r 
le deiendcur appelant aveQ ses plaidoyers ?oit d6clar6 pro- 
duit irregulierement et prematur6ment, et sbit d6clar6 non 
avenu ppftr, entre autres, les-raisons suivantes : 
lo. Parce que le d6f6ndeur ^ (appelant) nie au demau- 

\Ydeur'(intim6)^le droit de porter la pr6sente action dont il 

', demande le renvoi et d6l>out6. 

2o. Parce que le d6fendeur plaide encore qu'il ne doit 
point compte au idemandeur du profit qu'il a &it sur la 
veute de rimment>le en question aii nomm6 Walker. 

3o. Parce que WGour doit prononcer sur ces deux 
points prejudiciellement k la production d'un compte 
incoinpilet suivaxtt le demondeur et k la contestation d'i- 
celui. , 

4o. Parce que 1^ iiit compt6 est irr^giilier dans sa fornix 
et non accompagnfe de pieces justificatives. 

6o. Parce* qtie le dit compte n'est pas dans le chapitre 
des d6penses un compte des d^penses au sujet d^ la pTO- 

^ pri§t§ en question seuiement cOmme dans- le chapitre des 

^•recettes, mais comprend une foale d'autrieB Skffaiies dis* ' 



i 




- <. ^ 






^'. 


J 


' 




, X — a . 


) 




•r 






l^i 




«' - 


i* 




m 








■* 



^. 



'7»":r 



*^ 



\ 



i, ^ OOUBT OF QUEENfl BENCH. ' Tl 

M' t .4; : / ' ■ • ' 

tinctes et ^«6par6e8 sans connexit6 avec la pr^sente de- 
L«aande et sabs qae le d6fendetiT se charge des recettes 
correspond^tes qWil a faites d'autres biens du deman- 
. deur. -;^ ^ 

"Et ooiuid^rant que I'appelant en produisant son 
compte avec ses defense* a par \k mdme^^onnu qn'il de-^ 
vait un compte des loyers et revenus qu'il a re^ns iwnr ' 
rintim6, et qu^^sa contestation de r^u^tion de rintim6 ne 
pent s'appliquei: k la demande en reddition de compte k 
laqjielle ^'appelant a a«sqaiesc6 en prOdnisant son compte,' 
•maisaaz autres oonclnsions prises par rintim6 ; 

" Et consid^rant que I'appelant en produisant son cMapte 
n'a»fait que se conformer k la demande qui.lui 6tait faitd - 
par Paction de rintim6, et que c'ekt k tort ^°ik Cour de 
premiire instance a d§clar6 que cecpmpte a 6t6 produit 
irreguli6ng«nent ^t. pr6matur0]p:ient ; \ ^, 

"Consid^rant que le compte produit pafllappelant est' 
dans la forme requise par le Code de Procedure, et que 
I'intime &'Mt, avant le ju^ement de la Oour de premiere 
instance, d6sist6 de son objection que te compte de I'ap- 
pelant n'^tait pas accompagn6 de pieces justitficat^ves ; 

" Et" considfirant q^e I'ili^^^t n'6tait pajs |jj^u de ne 

rter en d6penses que kfs sojflames qil'ifcAyAit^pBns6es ; 



port 

pour I'intim^ au sujet de la projHri6tl dont oh lui deman- 
dait compte des Joyers et revenue qu'il a per9U8 pour 
I'intimg, mais qu'il ponvait ported en d6penses toutes les 



1884. 

Dorioa 
1 et 
Dorion. 




qu il avait per9U8 . 
"Con9id6rant, de plus, que rien ne fait^ir dans^P 
cause que I'appelant ait re^u pour l'intim6 d'autrfes som- 
mesquec^Ues qu'ilaportfies au chapitre des recettes de 
son compte, et que. s'il en a kfu d'autre^|nt il soit 
comptable envBrs1'intim6 ou- qui doivent compenserpu 
dStruire les charges faites par I'appelant dans le chapiWe 
des dfipenses de son oomjfitfe, celja ne peu| que faire la ma- 
tiei^ de dfibats de^compte sur lesquels la Oour ne pourra 
adJ^g^r ql||p>rd; une instruction rfigulidre des pr6tentions 
des parties fespectiYdi^efnt, ©t non suir uiie simple motion 



M 



.■■#■ ,.■ 



■ , 



-■#■■ 



' ! 







\ ■ " ■ ■> 

^^ '^ ; — ii 


, »■ 






1-:^ ■■''■„ 




- 'iHij " - 


,. 


. - / 








- Jf 




, ;. i •%• 








■*." 


T ,:J 






,,■.1' ' 


1 






' 




.*"' '•-. '' ■ 






".,.: .. '■ * ■ "r:-' 


■ .,1 V '■'«,'■'>" 










1881, 



Dorion 

^*» 
Dorion. 



'fci> 



-I » 






M 



V 






* i 



»/ 



ta 



•. liQirrBEAL LAW REPORTa' 



pour rejeter le conipte prodnit par Tappelant ; 

" Et considfiraut que les autres raiisons iuvoqu^es paf 
rintim6 pour I'aire rejetor le compte de Tappelant sont 
mal fondfies; ' , 

" Et consid6rant qu'il y a erreur dans le jttgement in- 
terlocutpire rendu par la Cour de premiere instance le 
septieiiio jour de juin 1882 ; 
' " X/ette Oour casSe et annule le dit jugeriient, etc." 

*ifii ' - Jugement infirmfi. 

> Iwtec <!• ilf^«torg, pour I'appelant. * . 

Geoff^hmjXJ^ R., consoil, 

Pngniielo Sr Lanctot, pour I'i 
(e. x-.^ .'- 



I'intim6. 






If ■ 






\ t rruf 






' November 19, 1884. 

Coram DouioN, C.J., Monk, UaMssay, Cross and Baby, JJ. 

THE MONTREAL, PORTLAND & BOSTON 
' , . ' RAILWAY COMPANy, 

* ' . / f APPELI^ANT; 

' '■ •'•, ' • AND ,*l^ 

* .'HATTON,;f|^ ' ■ 

\ ,* , 't^'r-*^: RESPONDENT. 

Ajt/ml Bumi—^mnhj in Ajqteap^'Condemnalitm under 

C. C\P.:i^. : ■' ':>■, -^ 
•'■ '"'■ "'■'■'^': ..^ •■■■ ' • ...' ■ ■;. ' \ % '" 

UiM, that on an iiJ)i»oaH)y tbe (lefcijdunt from a jiulgment' onlering u 
. Uailway CVl'nipaiiy to call the anniflil jneeting within ono niontlCor 
^9 PJIJ? il fine of $2,000, sucurity for costs only is insufQcient: the 
i; soiiHrity must be t^ satisfy tlJb condemnation. . y \-. 

. /. L, Morris; fox i\iQ respondent (Nov. 16),^mored that the 

• appeal be disinis|Sed because of the insufficiency of the 

lippeal bond. The circumstances were these : 'The annual 

. ineeting of the coinp4ny,aJ>pellant, should have been held 

on the ieth January, 1884. .The meeting «^jvs duly call^- 

- 1 ■ .f . . ■ ■ - , , ■■ . ■ . ■ 



'iV 






A 






U 



Un 






COURT (OF QIT^N'S BENCH. 



^M 



if' 

HatUin- 



,but just before the time of irieeting it wai sibpped by an *" 
iujunctiou. This injunction waa contested and set aside ^'H"?'!* 
The directors were then npiified to call the meeting as "" ' 
soon as possit^e. They neg^egted and rifi^sed to do so. 
A mandamus was then takei by. the respU^p^', a share- ' 
holdeito compel them. toiGomply with [the law. This 
mandamu^j^rajicQntested^dtheju^gnieitt now appealed 
from was rendered, i ^^hi^ judgment ordered the com-/ 
party to caU the meeting within one jaioni^, <^to pay the ' 
sum of |2,0Cr0r The compaiiy appeal ed,-aM on the appeal >' 
„gave.8ecurity for costs only. The pretension of the res- '^ 
ponddiit was that undei: the;|erm6 of Artkcle 1124 of the - 
Code'9f Propedure'the appjblTantis bound|t<J give security . 
that ''ho will satisfy the (bondemnatr6n Ld pay ^11 c(ftt6 " 
anddamages adjudged,^' k case the judgment appealed' 
from.is cotfBrmed. Herd^the*^ appellant had not givbn * * 
security that he Would [satisfy the condemnalion.J An %: ' ' 
exception was put in to the decision of ^he'proihonotary 
accepting security for c«>^ts only. The efLstion was, had 
thti appellant given security in the termJ.of the article of 
fhe code, that is to say. Had security beeJ* given to satisfy 
the .condemnation? The judgment wai an alternative 
on?— to call the meeting within ojie njonth, or to pay ^ 
^2,000. Jt was suBmitbsd that the appellant shojild'have 
given security to pay the $2,000. 

M. S.^Lanergan, for tie appellant, coitfended' ttfdt We" * ' 
judgment ii^yolved no ^on6y condemntition. The alter- 
native Preferred to did .n6t arigeri^ntillthe month had 
elapsed ; and unless the judgment was Confirmed by thig 
court; and the company then refused to kll the. meeting ' 
It would nevfer become Jiable"to pay thik suin. - The case 
oiBodiette Sf Ouellette,^ 6. h. R. 36J, wai relied u^n. " 

0. A. Gebffrion, 'q.C.,1 for the respoLient, in reply 
submitted that the case tited did not ak)ply. Jt was m' ' 
^appeal irpto a judgment iji an action e/cfec/aro/m ^hypo- 
iMque, and the Court Jield that the valWe of the im'iAove- ' 
able was not to be tafc«n asitl^e amount |or which Becxij^j 

■ ^''- %'r^P9rt <tf case, M. I^ R, 1 a\c. 69. 



w 



• 'It] 

•■A 



■^ 







tPB^ ' 



t4 



MONTREAL I.AW\bEF0BT8. 

/ 






I • t. 







/ 



1 ! 




*•*■ should be given. 'Here there was a condemnation pure 
5.^ton^R^,''oi^and simple for $2,000 if the meeting ho not called, and 
the appellftnt wa? bound to give security to satisfy a 
^ < condemnation for that amount. 

This was a motion by respondent to i^j^t the security 
^The appeal is from a judgment) dh a writ of mau- 
ndering the company, appellant, to caU a generid/ 
Uf of the shareholders for the electio^of directors' to 
I those whose term of office had eqcpired. In default 
_ i^g the meeting within thirty days the appellant 
condemned to pay 12,000. :The company has given 
s^iii^iyw-not to answer the coiidemnation as it ^as 
rp5|ir4d to do by law— but only for the costs 0^*"% 
appeal, ai^d the bondsmen have justified to the extent of 
4400. The respondent moves that the bond be "rejected, 
on the jgTotii^d ihat the compuiy should have given secu- 
rity- fbrtfie condemnation, and that the sureties should 
haflre justified to the extent of $2,000. The case of 
Bmhate Jc Owell^te has been cited by appellant, but it has 
no application whatever. In that ca6e,it was a hypothe- 
cary actioni and, the defendant had been condemned to ' 
dilaisser the property^ witljin fifteen days 0^ pay the 
Namount of the debt. He gave security for the condemna- 
t\pn, and. deposited the sum- of- $850 as security, and the 
Court held that the -bond was suMcient. But there is a 

• vast difi^ence between the two cases. The t)K)perty could 
. not 4i|appear and the respondent had ample security on 

, it. Iilt^the present case, the Court is disponed to set aside 
the bond. The appellant will be allowed eight days to 
,. eliter n^w security.. • ^* s^> | 

: " [Subsequently, the appellant havi^ declared lii Vbiting 
^(und«!ir 1124 C. P.) that the compjtny does riot object to the 
judgment being executed^ the bond was allow^ by con- 
. sent to stand for the co/sts on the appeal.] / 

' JMT iS. lonergtm for the appellant. . ' ^ A 

• J. £. ilfOfrw for the re8i)ondent.^ « : " '- . 



. eiei 
\am 



"^ 












'fit> . . 



.• f.' • 



h:' 



OOtJET OF QUEEN'S BEN< 



•ca 



■i,^.,- 



75 



\. 



. p Ma3r21, 1884. 

Corfl%3|6BioN, OJ., Monk, Uabisay, Oeoss, Baby, JJ. 

THE ST. MWRENCE AND OHIOAGO FORWARDIHO 

COMPANY, ' 

-.» ° »"', ' {J^endanf below), 

C • ' ' '■■ ' Appellant; 

,.;'•■ "■'' AND- " ••'■■• 



r : THe'^OI^ONS BANKr^^"^'^"^"^ " 
"^ . - " (Plaintiff below), 

BUI of Lading— Assignjnenl— Custom of 3V«fe, 

IJeynolda Broa. shipped from Toledo, a port in the United Stat^, 16,500 
buBhelfl of wheat by schooner to Kingston, Ont., the car^ to be deU- 
vored as per address va. the margin of the biU of lading as follows :~ 
Order Reynolds Bros. ; notify Crane & Baird, Montr«al, P.Q. Care 
of St. Uwrence & Chicago Forwarding Co.," implying that, althc^gh 
the voyage of the schooner ended at Kingston, the cargo was to be 
put m charge oTthe Fprwarding- Company, desUned for MontreiU,, 
Crahe & Baird to be pat upon their diligenpe by notice for any intei > 
rest they might have in the caiAa The schooner having arriwd at 
Kingston, the Forwarding Com^ny, the ordinary carrien for Cranel^ 
& Baird, received the cai^go and paid the lake freight to the master of 
the schooner. No new blU 6f lading was issued, but the agent of thd 
lorwardmg Company at Kingston, signed a receipt for the cargo 
across theikpe of the duplicate of the billof lading. The respondenta 
made advances on the original bill of lading, endorsed by the ship- 
f pers, but the wheat had been previously delivered by the Forwarding '^' 
Company at Montreal t^ie order of Crane & Baird, without the 
surrender of the original Wl of lading. 
The question waa whether the appellants, the Forwarding Company, were 
held to the aame oblfeaUons as if they had been signera of the original ' 
biU of lading, which the respondents contended had fon» and e£fect 
, until the cargo reached its destination in Monti^al, and whether the 
' appellants as forwarder^ were*<3»nd to have demanded and secured 
the surrender of the oripnal bill <rf ladhig on delivery by thenSof the 
cargo to the consignees. 1 

^«'W,reversiii5s the decision of the Superior Court (6 L. N> ^ ;,26 li. C J 
324), that the bill of ladiMMvii fUfllled and becMna.efiete by thdde^ 
livery of the wheat at K^^, prior to the jwsignm^t k thebUlof 
uding to the leapondents. , "■ *; ' ■ \ 



\ 



t^. 



1 1* 




*j> 



-t: 



5f>) 



H.i 




•re 



MONTtlEAL LAW REiORTS. 



1884. 



St. Ln< 
Jt OhioiiRii 



wrenoe 

JOT- 

wanliiigOo. 

A 
MolmniH lisnk. 



\ 



A( 



1' 




2. 'riio noKotlahillty of s bill of Ia<1inK (»anot be put upon prBcisoly 
tiif Haiuo f(M)tiiiK IM a bill of uxclianxt^. An advnuuor on a bill nf 
lading Hliould oxarcidu ruaM<)iiivl)lu (lili)j;(Uiat at) reKarda ttiu oargu it 
purjHjrts to ropnvtont 

3. Tbe al1ug;(Mi usaKi^ <>f tra<io, iniiKwini; tlio oblitiationM incurred uiidor 
the first bill of ^dln^ u|)on tlio oarrior wlw) avcupta a carRo carrity] to 
an intorinodiatu imrt to forward it to itH final doHtination l>y an addi- . 
Uonai traimit, HO aa to ruqiilro such ultimate carrier to procure the 
Hurrondor of tlio original bill of la«ling to fnM) liimself from rasponsi- 
bility, could not alt^ir tliu establiabed sixnillcanat of the doininjunta 
used, or the legal roiatioua of tbu }>artieH a(;coniing to tbe facta of tlio 
case, or make liability depend upon obtaining tbe Hurrender of a 
ilocument after it bad oxbauated itaelticieitoy aud ceased to have any 

operation. ' . . , ' / - ■ : ■ ^ *• . '■ '.- ' . - 

The following is the written judgment of the Superior 
Court, (Papinkau, J.) from which the prtesent appeal was 
taken (See 5 L. N. 6, and 26-L. C. J. 324/ for report of the 
case in the Court below) :— 

" La Cour^.. < 

" Consid6rant.que la demanderesse a piWv6 les priuoi- 
pales allegations de sa demande, et sp6cial«ment ^ue le 
bl6 en question en cette cause, a ete tranaporte par la 
defenderesse, de Portsmouth, pr^s Kingston, dans la "Pro- 
vince d'Ontario, en vertu d'un contrat tacite ou vert^j. 
qui n'etait que la rontinuatioiidu cuntrat conteuil dans 
le connaissement Exhibit numetro deux ^e la demande- 
resse ; que la defenderesse et ses employ68 n'avaient pas 
d'autre autorit§, poitir transporter oe gpiin de Kingston a 
Montreal, que celle coutenue dans ce connaiei^em«nt qui 
mettait Id cargaisou a ses soins, et qu'elle a accepte oe soaju, 
et qu'elle a, en consequence, fait le transport 4 MomtrwaJ 
avec I'entente qu'elle serait pay6e poitr ce transport, aa 
taux ordinaire du §art par le propri^taire dfe la cargaisou, 
proprietaire dont ,1a coonaissance tui serait^evon6e au 
igqioyen de- la prodiiction du connaSiK^ment en question qui 
indiquait que la i^^rgaison devaii' fttre Uvr^e a ,l'ordi« de 
Reynolds Brothi^s.les^chargtiurar;* J* ^' • 

" Considorant \^«^ si^naaissement, tout en n'(§tai»t pas 
Atrictement couform«r~ttiix dispositionn d%ta loi, etait connn 
de la d^fen^eriiise quJ^'tinWa^! une copie pour sonpropre 
Tfiam^tetjam^^ fait ^'y e^t cdnlbrm^ partielkiafiiLt en 



=^ 






^*^ 



MH 



■-*'• 



■':; .') 



.:'.-^w, 












t<' 




f<^I^S,y J, 



OOtTRT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. 

Oonsidfirant 



transportant le b^6 A Montreal 
coniiaiBHtynont 6tait suifisaiit 




. !e ladit ' 
pouT faire connaiti^Q k \ki%^g!^!^' 
dfiftuideresso et a Hes employfes et olficiors, que la cargaisoa ""^'jg'O"- 
n'a&it livrablo qu'A I'ordi-e de Reynolds Brothers ou de **"'***'''^ 
leiirs cessionnaireR ; 

" Consid^trant que la dumauderesse est deveuue, pour ^ 

VRlabJcT consideration et par ondossoments r^guliers, pro- 
pri^taire ^'une portion do la cargaison me|i'^onn6o dans le 
(lit connftiffsenn^nt ; savoir do 15,500 boisseaux de h\0 do la ^ „ . 

(jualitf^ y aleutionfl6e et valant $1^,2*75 ; 

^^'Oonsiijeirant cjuo la d^fenderesse n'a pas prouv6 lei ^^ -' 

.all%atioiis^0sa. defense, et sp6cialement qu'elle^n'a pas 
|>rouv6 avbit felt mi contrat distinct et independent du 
dit connaissiJmont avec Crane & Baird, k Montr6al, pour 
Ifi transport de 1^ ^argaisoij de Portsmouth ou Kingston,. 
Ontario, ju^u'A Montreal, quoiqu'elle est 8p6cialemont 
aH6g«6«3rtf^oir fait tel conttat distinct avec Crane & Baird,. 
A Montreal ;■':■:; .■■■ ■*-• -.'.-^ ■■■■:.■ :\- .,.; '■■-- 

" Gonsiderant que sur pffre par la depiftiideresse de'ta 
remise du dit connaissempnt A la defenderesse, celle?ci a? 
refuse de^lui livrer les dits 15,500 boisseaux de bl6 qui 
sent la, propriete de la demailderesse ; ^ * " \ 

" Considerant, cependant, que les diflferentes pariies d#^ 
ceite transaction ont et6 faites avec un grand relAchement 
des regies propres k codiserver I'ordre dans les affair^? com- 
• iperciales, et que les dete parties ont participe a ce relAohe- 
mcnt qui a ete la eaus^dn present lilige ; 

';K«nvoie la ~ defense d^ la defenderesse et condampe 
-ceHe-ci pour lei causes 6nonc6e8 dans la demandX. a livrer 
a la demanderesse, sous (^uinze jours de cette^irte] la'^ 
^Vantite de 15,600 boisseajix de ble de la qualite men-' 
tionnee dans la demande etdans le cpnnaissement. et qui 
sont la propriete de la demanderesse, et a d6faut par la 
d^i^nderes^ de^ ce faire dans le dit deiai, elle est con- 
damnee k payer a la demanderesse la dite somme de 
116,276 valeur du dit ble^^avec interet sur cette somme k 
compter du^2f Decembre, 1«80, jour de raasignation et lea 
depens, excepte ceui 'd'enqu6te, distraifs k Messieurs 
Abbott, Tait & Abbotts, avocats de la demanderesse, chaque 



•■"l. 






\. 




: '-'•^ ' 






i^K » 






kW tUBFO^fl. 



pWrtio payant sea fVaiMd'enAudio, en par la domanderolisfl 



© .. 



" \- /chiJI^jr^or- payant lea charpfi» Huivant'le t'^tinaiHsoraont, losqaels «ont • 
" . ullTiZk **" ♦^'240, aout $930 i)eur 1« fret do' Toledo i\ Portsmouih, ] 
« n. 1^ ^^ ^gjQ p^^^ j^ ^^^^ ^^ Portamouth ou Kingston, dana la 

Province d'Ontario 4 MontW^al ausdit." 
' _ jy. Girouard, Q.C., and N. W. TVenholme for the Appel- 

. lant. ' X, , • ,. 

S.Betkune, Q.d, and M. M.TWi, Q.d, for the Reapon- 
^^^ dent. ' / 

^ ^ The facts and argnmefita are falj(y stated in the ppiniona 
"^ #/>flhe. learned, judges. ■...•■ '"' ■' ' ■ '~ ---^—.-^ 

,. Monk, J. {dittentiens) i—- / •' ' 

' This ia an a6tion for the recovery of the value of a quan- 

tity pf wheat shipped from Toledd to Montreal via Ports- 
mouth Harbor (Kingston); and the eariala. It was ahipped 
for the first part ofiWiouruey from Toledo to Kingston' 
by a achooner call( nj i M |^ "JFalmouth, " and by the terms 
of the bill of ladiHUG^riginallSf which was delivered 
to the shipper, ^'^H^^K>licate or copy retained by the 
master of ^tlw achoSn^^he wheat w;aa to be delivered to 
the order of Reynolds mothers, the shippers, and by direc- 
tions on the bill, the wheat was to be put into the care of 
the appellants at Kingston, for conveyance to Montreal. 
As the lake schooners do hot usually come down the 
canals the ordinary practice|l8 to tranship shipments of 
grain from western porta destined for Montreal, at Kings- 
ton, into barges, for carriage down thl-canala. The appel- 
lants are the owners of barged employed in this work. 
The cargo in question was transhipped jact Kingston into ' 
one of their barges, and they gave a receipt for it ,on the 
d«plic([,te bill of lading so refined by the master of the 
" FalmouiK" andi they took a copy of the bill, and there- 
upon conveyed th* wheat to Montreal. The respondents 
contend that the iappellants, by receiving the cargo at 
Kingaton under the circumstances stated, and by the cus- 
tom of trade, contracted to carry the wheat in accoMulce 
with the terms of the bill of lading and to deliveiHt at 
iQ^ontreal to the order of Beynolda Brothers, or in other 




#= 



v?. 



^ 



1/1^ 



•u- 



'f^"f 



OOUBT OP QUHaWB B1»CH. 1 I* 

words to tWs r«8porident8 who were the hipldori for valae 
thoroof. it having beon duly endoried to them, Imt which, 
obligation th«y failed to' perforni, hating. dwlivered the' 
cargo to Orauo & Baird without produotiou of the bill "^ 
lading. ' • . 

The case was contested, and judginont was rondeTe<l in 
favor of respondottts (plaintiUk in the Court below) and 
honco this appeal by the appellants. After a careful 
consideration of the facts established by the evidence 
adduced, and also of the law.as I understand it, and th% 
custom of trade invoiced by the respondents, I am forced 
to Ihe «onolu8ion, that I cannot concur in the decisifln 
about to be rendered by this Court. I have «o hesitatio^i 
in saying, that I would confirm thejudgmentof the court 
below. The first point to be considered and perhaptf t£e 
most important in the' case, is the question relating to the 
■bill of lading, dated at Toledo the ^Rth August, 1880, 
which is expressed as follows : — 

" Toledo, d. AuKiMt 28th, 1880. ,: 
" ShJppei, in Kood order and condition by Rbynoim Bkoa., m asonta 
" an<l forwarders for am)unt and at the rijik of whom it may oonoern/on 
"board the achr. « Falmouth,:". wher«iof 8. D. Bockef is maater, boUhd 
'from thia port for Kin»itour^ Ontario, the following articre%aa"horo 
marked and descrilwd. to he ^Uvored In like good order and eendiUon 
an addreaaed on the mArgin, or tq his or their tmBlgm or (^onaignew, ' 
upon paying the freighted tshargoH as noted below (dangenj of navl- 
gation, Are and colliaion ex(»ptod). .. • 

" In WiTNiwfl Whhrkof the said mluter ol aaid veaael hath afflrriiod 
to Two (2) Bills of Lading of this tenor and date, one of which being 
" accomplished, the other to stand good. " 

"?J" ,,' '-' . ">/#bush.Na2RedW%eit 

" Keynolds Bras. *_ * -m 

«^^„ "_. • . V *FwighttoKiBgBt 

"Crane A Baird, __. • -ekper^h. 

*• Montreal, P, Q. - ^ "&D.«iS 

"^*"„ " '^ ""'■' '^Master. 

" St. Lawrence and Chicago Forwarding ComjMuiy \ 
J " at Portsmouth Harbor near Kingston, %nU Ontario^ 

The folloD^ing endorsements are found on tji^'back^f 
this original Bill of Lading which is filed>fihe re«pon- 

K dents, the duplicate remaining in the hai^of the Oaotain 
' ofthe«F^mouth": \ • ^"^ 



f I 



r- 



■■ '•■■ 




'■ 1^- ■■ "'-:■'■■■ ■: ■;...■ 


' 


■* 


-^ , 






1 




/ 


:■ •.. \:': -■•;."■' ■ , "' 7--, 




• 




» ' 


• 


^'- 


' ■ '. t;.'. 


i 


■*''*■ '■-■■■ ■ 


* 

if 

4 


- > 




t 

> 




{»7 


''■:'' i 


1*. 


/;-.::a;'V::v ■ ■x;:; 


, 




■l ■ ■ 


X' 


: -t. 


1 < 

1- ■ 




1 

w 






' ■ '^ . ., ■ '''■■■■. 


/ . ■■.-■■ " ■ " 






■■ 




i 


^ IJ 




;:;/:,,;-::,;V;c,, 




'-'■'.-.:':■ ■■ vl!;i ' ■.■ 


■A. ".■•"_■ , 


- ' ':: :;;-.,-^ - 


■ ..■;^:""\-.V:' 




« 




■•,■■- 


■■ ,,;. : : i .." 




■ ■ ■" . ■" '■'^, 






- 





// 




{./ 



^ 



,.-^ 



■i 




V 




^ 




A 







r/. 



IMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-3,) 





80 



MONTREAL I4AW REPORTS. 



1884. 

St- I^wrenos 

& ChiciiBo Por- 

wiinlinR Co. 

& 
Molaons Dank. 



* 



I hi* " ' 



\ 



.,.«'"'"■ 



" Rbymoum Bro«. 
" D. Maci'iiih, Ehq. 

" Doliver to Mossro. Beddtell & Co., or order, fiftoon thousand 
'flvo Imndnxl (15,500> busholaof within cargo, wo paying all froiglit 
•' diarges.* 

, " Crane & Baird. 

"Bhddall&Co." 

I take it as established beyond doubt, that the' destin- 
ation of the wheat when it left Toledo wa^pjipntreal, but 
as the lake schooners only run to Kingston, the usual 
course, well known and practiced for yearsj was adopted, 
of having it transhipped at Kingston into barges running 
between that pli^e and Montreal, which are employed for 
that special'pur^ose, and hence the direction on the bill 
of lading that the wheat was. to be placed in the care of 
the appellants, whose business it is to run such barges. 

The " Falmouth'" a,rrived at Portsmouth Harbor on the 
4th of September, 1880, with the wheat on board, and it 
was thereupon transhipped into a barge belonging to the 
appellants called the " Mohawk " for conveyance to Mont-* 
real. The duplicate or copy of the original bill of lading, 
which the master of the ^' Falmouth " had retained, was 
exhibited and communicated to the appeUants' agent at 
Kingston who wrote across the face of it a receipt for the 
cargo, and took a copy of the bill. The original bill of 
lading was not produced at Kingston ; nor was any order 
produced from Messrs. Crane & Baird. The cargo was 
delivered by the "Falmouth" to the Respondents in ' 
accordance with the directions in the bill 6f lading, and 
with the practice in respectof shipments of grain from 
western ports tt^McmtrealTthey deceived it in accordance 
with these directions, and with such practice, taking a" 
copy of the bill of lading for their guidance ; placed the 
cat^ on board their barge, and conveyed it to Montreal. 

To my mind it seems quit^ clear that, by acting thus, 
the Appellants assumed the pbligations imposed upon, the 
Captain of the " Falmouth "by the bill of lading of August 
28th, 1880. It is quite true the "Falmouth" had per- 
formed her part of the voyage, and the contract w:ith her 
hM been fulfilled and had terminated. No one pretends 



*i 



■w^lri' 



<t*F/F^* ^*^yt **# -*}^!' '^v T^"^ f '" 5*^" 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



81 



1884. 



the contrary, and m fact there can be no dispute on that -• 
point, but It must be borne in mind that the original bill /k J-^-c. 
of lading wa8.8till in existence-was tinexhausted and hi^^ 
circulation; possibly it may have been in the hands of '""'»"* B""^ 
Crane & Baird ; but as to the date, when it was delivered - ■ , 

to them, wo have some loose evidence or vague supposi- ' 
tions. but no proof One thing is certain, the appellants ^ 
never saw the original bill of lading. Under the drcum^ 
stances just adverted to, it seems to be mefe trifling to 
hold that the original bill had cea^d to exist, as regards 

The. appellants performed their duty in carrying thl^ 
wheat to Montreal; and that they should ha^rbet 
charged with doing so was in accordance with the inten- 
tion at the time of the shipment at Toledo, and with the 
cuslomary practice and usage in respect of such shipments 

f^Zl Ti"^. *'• ^"* r^" '' ^' ^- - ^o«^«nt pre- 
tended that m doing so.tLy had no duties to perform ' 

whf K i" TT'^ *^'" °^^^^^' '^P-" - duplkate of 
Svt ^"7^ gi^e^areceiptfoi: the cargo, andofwhich 
they had aken a copy for their guidance ? that they were 
under no law or custom of trade, that in fact they had no 
obligations to fulfill towards any one ? The answer to this 
I suppose 18 obvious-they w^re bound to notify the arri- 
val of the wheat to Crane & Baird, according to the inten- 
tion of their contract and to the custom and practice in 
hni nfTJ- -'li*^ the marginal direction on th« original 
bill of lading they probably were bound to forward it in 

EwT^'i'''*'^?^'*'"^' But as they were bound to • ' 

fol^^ the order m the bm oflading, so far; were they 

not also obliged, did they not verbally or tacitly bind ' 

themselves to comply with it in another particukr. yL 

that the cargo should bedelivered to the order of Reynolds' 

BrotW and upon that order only? ^is obligation on 

Hieir part seem^ to me to admit of ni> ^oubt, and it in 

reality covers the whole case for th0 respondents ; and in 

tr^:^:^ *^'' i^unctlon-m d^ing otherwise as tt; 

did, d^ they not do so at their owA risk and peril?- 



[II 



-^7--^ 



82 



MONTREAL LAW REPOBTO. 



*""•" 



i 

-I 



18W. Plainly they did. This is a point that fadmits of no dis- 
/<3h^a'JIi°FS?-CU88ion — our law — the custom of trade — and common 
ware m« o. g^^gg^ combine to make this view of the case as clear as 
• ^^ any le^al proposition can be and to my mind it is indis- 
putable. It is in vain that we invoke the formulas of our 
code ; that the deficiency in the proof of a custom of trado 
should be dwelt upon, or that misleading technicalities 
should be set up ; this difficulty remains. As the appel- 
lants undertook to forward the wheat upon their own 
responsibility without a new bill of lading, they" were to 
deliver the wheat to the order of Reynolds Brothers in 
conformity with the old bill, - 

Now, let us try to ascertain how far the appellants com- 
plied with this direction in the bill of lading. The 
following is the account given of it by Mr. Macphie, the 
principal shareholder and mana'ger in the appellants' 
^ ■' concern ; at first, as it will be seen, in a very confused 
and hesitating way, for reasons which,, he giyes himself 
and which are obvious : 
Being? asked the following questions, the picture he 
ogives of the performance is rather peculiar for ftsman of 
•business under tl^ese (^rcumstknces. ' , 

The answers must be taken together : 

" QwsHon. How did you deliver this quantity of fifteen thousand m,. 
" hundred and-eighty-six bushels to Beddall & Co., this last quiuitity ^rpii 
" delivered on thair account ? t\ 

" Answer. They brought me an order from the office of Meesre^ (^ane 
" & Baird, and on that order I made the delivery. . 

" Queaion. Is ituthe same order Vhich is produced i^lthis c^e upon 
" the back of the bill of lading ? h 

" Aruwer. No, that order never was presented. 
" QtwHwn. And $o ^tually you got two orders from Crane,& Baird, 
" one on the back of the bill of lading ? 
" Amiver. The position is this : The order given on the back of the bill 
* "of lading appears to have been 8ecroted,and «vben Beddall & Co. applied 
" for delivery of the grain, I asked them to bring me an order that would 
r " be my authority for giving them the grain, and they kept back from 
" me any knowledge of having got a previous order and went to the oflice 
" of Crane «&Batrd,^and obtai nod a second order and that second onler 
" was the one upon.which I delivered the grain." 

In cross-examination he is very frank and clear in his- 
aivswers, dS follows : v. 



♦ >• 



* fj^S^ R ^^:; ' 



•'n:> 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCif 



\ 



3t\La, „ 

Ciiic.i(ro For- 
ward trig Co. 

MoltAns Dunk. 

• \ 



•vtarToftn^Ji'icrr"' 7"!;'° '"• '"™' "»• "■"« a^.*^''--'' 

^^ ^^ now «he„ ihey go, p„«o,.,„„ J, u,^ ^^^ ,j ^^_^_ 

"^IfMMw. I cannot say. 

« I., them at tlioir TOna,r wtthonn, ^ ^ .■''" <^"'~'l«n." yon wve 
" J«««f. yJ " Ptcluction of tl.» bill of l„i|„g,- 

■;■ tr om ziir '" '"""""^ '" """ -^ - ^^ "»' ' 

^^ ^Mrtion. How are you interested ? /' '* 

- p^tZiiZZ^JTrt^''^'' [\<^ "»"«"'«» Con. 

- " "»'^tb« "yoXr^f r2:,-"-r '° "■» ■»'" »««■" " 

- .«». mo..„„. te Md ISle fJ^wTiSlT "i"'./"" "*• '- 
• ttie Comp»4y, Dofend.nl 1 i "" '''°°''' " «» "W"""' 

«.h.iifu,i/ci.im"tr^lrc«„n'',?^j ■' •■ "■""«* 

■ »n «pon ,„„ u, IkeSUTo^to C ;f ■" '^'»'""" "•' »"' 
_^n««r, Tl,eprob,bimjr|,(h8,,iii,y»i| 

"^SSifo^aifSr "^ " '^'"•'4< i»h.p..bo»ghdd 



i' 



..;*? 



-^3^ 




■# 



%■ 



84 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



m 



8t' Liiwronoo 

Jc Chivnitu For- 

wurdiiiic Oo. 

* 
JMoIbuiih B*nk. 



I, 
'"If 



v..;-' 





" (Motion. Wero tlioy intending to mako yoti respnnRihlo bncanso 
yon <lolivoro<l this Rraih witliout th« production of tlio hill of ladinj?^ 
" Antwtr. Tliat Ih tlio idea, yo8. It was an ovuraiKlit on my part, it 
was pla<^ing conlidonfio in thodo poopio, and tlioy docoivod U8." 

This dear and explicit evidence is out of the mouths of 
the appellants themselves ; and considering, the position 
of Mr, Macphie, it reflects the highest credit upon tho 
character and integrity of that gentleman. It amounts 
to almost an admission of all Ihat is essential to the suc- 
cess of the respondents' case. But let us turn now to 
the facts more directly in issue between the appellants 
and the respondents;, Wtt- will then, see the significance 
and cogency of Mr. Maophie^'s tea^mony; and also the 
justice of the foregoing remarks. 

Reynolds Bros, had endorsed the original bill of lading, 
and delivered it to Crane & Baird. 'iferane &f Baird there- 
upon endorsed it specially by an endorsement addressed 
to D. Macphie, the agent of the appellants, by which en- 
dor^iement they required him to deliver to st^m doing 
business in' Montreal launder the style of Bi^^all & Co. 
16,000 bushels of the car^p mentioned in theJ|)iil of lading, 
they (Crane & Baird) pa;^ing all freight changes. 

A Having endorsed the bill. Crane & Baird delivered it to 
Beddall&Co. 

It is not proved when this latter endorsement took 
place, nor is ^the date of the delivery of it proved. But 
on the 14th* September, 18^, Beddall & Co., being then 
the hold^TS of the original bill, and being the owners of 
the 16,5w bushels of wheat, mentioned in the special 
indorsement by Crane & Baird to them, applied to the 
respondents afc, Montreal for an advance upon the security 
of the bill, and of the wheat therein mentioned. The 
respondents, in che usual course of th^iir, banking business, 
advanced $16,275 to Beddall & Co., who endorsed and 
delivered to the \ respondents the original bill of lading, 
as collateral secuVity for the repayment of the advance. 
And they then als6 signed a memorandura„whereby they, 
in effect, acknowledged the advance, and the transfer of 
the bill of lading las security for its repayment; ^nd 



agreed 

iHll of 

08 sect 

The 

deliver 

bill of] 

of the ' 

due for 

OS the i 

withou 

fore re 

Hence 

wheat. 

It mi 

the deli 

under t] 

lading. 

on it w 



/ 



OOUBT OF QUEENT8 BENCH. 



86 



asrroed that the said 16,^00 bushels of wheat and the ^m. 

TB^nrtrt^y^ remain pledged to the respondents ^{,i-re„; 

as security for ho advance, then made to thorn. w&cSr 

Ihe respondents applied to the appellants for the Moi«.n*. B«.k. 

the :Jr?' '"^"!^"^ *° "^"^^^^ i* -Po» the delivry 

du for the ' """^ *" ^;^ ^" ''«'^^* •^"^ ^^-^ff«« lawfully 
due for the carriage of it. But the appellants declared 
as the fact was, that they had already «i4n ud the ^hZl 

r'tfu^dt^d^^ ' 

^re refused to deliver the wheat to the respondents * 

Hence this action, for the recovery .f the val^^^^^^^^^^ 

_ It must bo borne in mind, as Mr. Macphie states that 
the delivery of the wheat to Beddall & Co. was not m^l 
ander the order of indorsement on the back oTtrebmlf ^ 
wJ ™^.P'°*^,'^<'«d to the appollarits: but the wheat 

lants to dehyer tlte^rgo to their order ^^ 

^^ This smt was resisted on ;^eral grounds by the appel- 

tha?!^''* °bjffion f6 the respondents' demand was 
■ ^r '^•wl ^ "" '"™ "^ ""1 guidance ; the/ .cted 









86 



MONTKEAL LAW REPORm 



II' 



-\ 




iHW., prupostorouB : and in any and every event they were 
."i'hi««K.7"h,^ *>**""<! to comply with this direction in the bill of lading, 
wimiihg c.). and in (conveying the cargo to Montreal, and also in 
M..!.,.,;, n„„i<. delivering it to Crane &akird, without any further agree- 
. uiont of informal character, they were, at least, bound to 
do HO with the order o^ReynoldH Bros, before thiim aud 
the bill of lading in their possession ; and in so obviously 
and so flagrantly disregarding this essential formality, 
and by leaving the original bill of lading in circulation 
* as a means of deception and fraud, as in this cnse, they 
are justly liable to the respondents' demand by their 
action, they being the holders of the original bill of lading, 
horui JUie a.ud for value. The fact is, no valid delivery of 
the cargo could bo made to Crane & Baird or to any other 
party without the production of Reynolds Bros.* order, 
indorsed on the original bill of lading ; and in the face of. 
this, it is idle to trnkT about a new bill of lading or a con- 
tinuing contract. To hold the reverse, would to my mind, 
not be justihed by thp facts proved and be contrary, not 
only to the custom of trade in matters of this kind, but 
also to the law which should goA'em this case. A certain 
amount of unfavorable comment has been made upon tho 
>. insulhciency of the evidence respecting the . usage and 
custom of trade which respondents sought to establish; 
' 'ftiid, no doubt, this point is one of considerable importance 
in this case. But, it will be observed that the testimony 
adduced had reference more particularly to a certain 
course of dealing between parties situated as these were ; 
and also to a certain local and necessary usage — and so 
far, I do not see that the respondents'" evidence has been 
decidedly contradicted. It is not, however, on this proof 
alone, nor lipon this alleged usage that I rest my opinion ; 
in my judgment, the appellants were guilty of much 
f ">' gross negligence, I will not say fraud, in improperly and 
^ illegally delivering the respondents' property to third 

parties, who under the circumstances had no right to it ; 
and ^at they are clearly liable to respondents for the 
value'of that property. 
The appellants, (defendants in the court below,) farther 



p loaded 
been de. 

as ^lecur 

* there is 

reasonat 

proved a 

of a proc 

interests 

hesitatioi 

It was 

of lading 

" Falmoi: 

bashelfjo 

original!] 

lu som 

part of a 

to delivei 

The on! 

could hai 

of the difi 

the respoi 

for a 8om€ 

tioned in 

tion, becai 

.the Iimite< 

bushels n( 

appellants 

Baird, the] 

for the qua 

charge the 

them; thai 

of lading i 

of the app( 

the quanti 

respondenti 

of that sms 

can remain 

ter of prin 










'•<\ 



OOORT OP QBEBNB BENCH. 



«l 



• ^.r ^ fiu*°. """""" »d™.c«l. Of thi. allegation "^^ »-»• 
proved at M or that the bank would or could be guilS 

™,!u° r'^ dilBou^y that uuder pariicular circunu,taUcea 
ouM have ocourrbd,iwould have been „ .o theTalM^ ' 

te^-eu?i^-:^-:-i:^i .- 

bushels not comprised in that endorsemenr IS JJhe -' ' 

Baird, they require no further dischanre fV,«n o\i- iT 
for thequantity transferred to th^t^^dtl ^UsT 

^S:" ^.-T'^"' '^^ -i^ offered t'j:; , 

Ihem that ,8 to say by , surrender of the orimnal hm ' 

of the appeUaata, that the .^apo^ent. demand CTl^ 
lie quantity mention^ i, thefill of iS^oe^ 
jpondent/are wiUingW deliver up the bSf.i ,1^! 
ofth.t8maherqu«.tity. No poMble liability Th«!Z 
c«. remain »«. against the af.pellant8. Moreora w^ 
•« of p™.|p,e, since they h«l oontra^T'Iw 



■\- 



i 







H8 



MONTREAL LAW RKI'OUTK 






4 



'*» 16,r)00 buHht»lii of whoat to tho onlot of Roynold« Broii., ^ 
4 01.1";™^;'- **»•'"■« »» nothiiijf to limit the ri^ht of I^7Il()ldH HroB., to 
w..niin«c.. j^i^,, ^^,,jj jj^j^,^^ j^ ^^^^^jj ii,H«Hiiitat« th« dt'livetv of 

tlui ffrum, til part, to diH«»r«ut persons. 

And, mort»(^vor, the objoction is a Htranffo ono, coming 

from uppellantij, who had pn^viously <leliv«n«d tho very 
16,r)00 bushelH of th(5 rarfifo, a dtdivory in part, upon 11 
||t'livery ordor alono. This protension autims to mo to bo 
entirely without foundation in law. 

It was 8tiir^rthi'«r pleaded, that as tho cargo of tho 
" Falmouth " had all boon dolivercid before the endorse- 
ment of the bill tii' lading by Crane & Baird, that ondolstj- 
mont was a nullity, and gave no right either to Boddall 
^ ^Sc Oo. or to the Bank. This appears to mo a strange pre- 

^ ton}<ion on the part of the appellants. In a few words it 
^ amoutftH to this;— we had previously to these endorHc- 
ptn/nts/on the 'bill of lading delivered the wheat to Crane 
^Btlird without any legal proof that they were the 
owners— we had never seen the bill of lading in thoposses- 
HuHi of Crane & Baird nor tho endorsement of Reynolds 
' IJrothers thereon, in fact we did not know where it was; 

and all this Wo did on a separate delivery order from 
Crane & Baird, ^id upon our having adopted this strange 
proceeding, the bill of lading and all the endoniemehts on ' 
it became null and yoid — were extinguished. Of course, 
I do not possess the ingcQuity necessary to discuss, not to 
, say, combat, such a pretension ; but the plain facts were 
that tho wheat had been illegally, I will not insinuate 
fraudulently, delivered by the appellants, not on Reynolds 
Bros', order, but on Crane^ & Baird's own order alone, 
^ leaving the bill of lading in their hands or in the hands 

of Beddall & Co. fqr circulation if they saw fit ; and then 
they set up their own default as a valid reason for not 
delivering the wheat to Reynolds Bros', order, because 
' they had previously delivered the wheat on Crane & 
Baird's delivery order. I cannot see how this gross negli- 
gence, not to say more, on the part of the appellants can' 
exonerate them. It was their " oversight," their own fault, 
and I think they cannot avoid the cousequences of it. 



5i. 



v.- 






COURT or iiUEKN-B BENCH. 



m 



MolauiM Bank. 



S<)m« <)th«r points aro raised. „„ 

iHt. Ah to tho wh.,at h«ingmix..<l with portioiiH ofuthor ."J, '-—t- 
•argooH. Hut .fso. whose fault w.iH thin? Tho apiKm.mtH --^«"" 
.^t I ortHm.,uth mixed tho " FHlraouth's - <argo with other 
wheat ou hoard of their own vossel-this they admit them- 
«elve«, and the proof fl/iumfc ostablishes it. I am at a loss 
to understand that thin kind of negligonce-lof o^nUess- 
.108., oan be urged as a valid ground of defence to thi. 
aetion. It was argued :-- 

2nd That Boddall & Co. eould transfer no greater rights 
to he Hank than they themselv*,. poHHesscKl; and as they 
had none-the Bank obtained none by the endorsement 
uad del, very of the bill of huling. Now, I think it will 
M, admitted that the end and intent of tho original hill of 
.«lmg were not completed-that it was unexhausted by 
the mere delivery of the cargo to the appellants at King- 
Hton-that It was in unrestricted circulation. If Boddall 
& Co. porpetrated a fraud on the Bank ; were the Appel- 
lants not to blame in the matter, when they delivered the 

onI« KHl T'^^ '"r*'^ '^^"^ *« ^^™«^i" iu possession 
of the bill and to circulate as they chose ? If Boddall & 

Co. had no "ght to transfer the bill of lading to the Bank 

did not the appellants (uncon8(;iou8ly perhaps) practicallv 

connive and co-operate with the fifnf to practice this 

peculiar species of fraud on the Bank ? And it seems to me 

STa-e r^^^^n *»^'^*' «»d«r th^ circumstances of 
this case, the appellants could seriously urge bucIv^a 
defence. Besides on this point the authorities Jlfccpiicit 
ho bill of lading represents the property Vuntiims been' 
delivered tn confarmitif vnth Us terms, and tL bill of ladinir 
.8 not effete, or "spent," until such de^L^ has been>^ 
made. The article of the Code expressl A^vid^. ^,t 
;; when, by the bill of lading, the ddiver/Hrg^^^^^ 
to be made to a person named or to his assigns, i^ch 
person may tmnsfer his right by endorsement aniVeli^ 

" '2 '^ '.^,^"* "^ ^""^^^ '^^ **»« o^e'«hip of the ' 
gdj^ and all rights and liabilities in respect thereof are 
held to pass thereby to the endorser. " (Art 2421) 

Accordiiig to the piinciple of this article, and according 



;i' 



< , 



A h 



f: 




00 



MONTREAL LAW RRFOmt 




^' 






, '"^ to tho rtilo whioh Km Innm m<m» than otui« «Kpi^M|y 
A^chh.HV.jp.Tr "tiitiMl ill thnjuri«pru(loti(;(!, thw bill ot'liuliiig rurtiftiiiii ia ' 
li»\^Xi^k ***•"•'*' ""^'* '^« «"<>n'litioiiH hiviw tWuMicoinpliud with. In 
■" *" "othor wordH, thi« bill oH^liuliiig in <|u«>Htioii n'lnaiiu'cl in 
foroG until th«j goodn had Imhui d«Iii?«rml to U«'yn<)ldH Hrow. 
Until, th«rofor«, th« graiiv in quuHtion ^m <li«liv«*rod to, 
tht» r«HtH)nd«»ntii, tho bill of lading r«raain«d in forne. %.-. 

I hav« tixarainod with groot «!ttr« th^j t^aiiua and thi^ 
dotiMionH (rittMl, ri^fMrrod to in tho apjndUntH* liuitum. No 
doubt in inoHt ofthoHo inNl,un(;oH th« law in rifl^htly inter- 
• pr«t«d and laid down; but th«» dilHcalty in all naaes of 
thiM kind, ia th« correct application of, tho goneral prin- 
cipl«8 therein dificuMtid and invokijd. It is obviouH that 
Homeof tho greatest Judges who tbuH deal wilh' varying 
ovidautHj, and with oasoH dilfering from thin, wore them- 
flelv*)ii very much i)erplox«Hl, and frequently have had 
recourse to obiter dicta. In .dealing with cfues of ev6n 
maritime bills of lading they manifest great «!^tion, even 
h"8itation, in giving their doijisions ; they, moreover, deal 
in broad and pretty well known generalUies with which 
most lawyers art! quit«! familiar. Uut in applying these 
doctrines, however just and reasonable, we tavmt carefully 
bear in mind the si>ecial provisions o(|, our law — and we 
must consider with due attention the parti<!ular facts of 
tho cases where the application of these principles is in- 
sisted upon. The features of this case anj very peculiar, 
and I have no hesitafion in holding that, in my judg- 
ment, nontr^' the decisioujs referred to apply directly or 
exclusively ^ the case under consideration. 

lly argued, and with considol-able earnest- ' 
less by the appellants^, that the Bank was guilty of 
lashes; with our banking acts before them, and the bill 
of Hiding in their hands, they were bound to greater .dili- 
geuceM;haiPthey appea* to have exercised ; and to have 
taken more strict precautions with an old and regular 
customer of the Bank — the respondents. That they were 
bound, before closing their transaction with ^beddall & 
Co.; by vigilant inquiry to ascertain where the cargo was, 
imd a variety of other particulars in regard to it ; such as 









,- r-^f /m^' ^-^W f 



-,.. , '■^ 



- a»URT or QUKKN-H linTGU. 



91 



whun ,t wu« to arrive. lnvo.tlff.t« tha.U^i, of th« Imrgi.. .« 
««d.j.c.rU,» whether th« .urgo w«m m|«.d with othor/{,'r'^ 
vvh.at or not. A. . m«ttor,of,fH..t^h.y did n.arly dl tL ^-ni^-'^T 
but .UipiM.ar« th,.y hud tho.« rfetailn fn,m Mr HoddaH' •*•"-" *^'- 
w o i..d Ih. bill of l.ulin, in hia h.nd.and haUKl it ti' 
|h,.m . hut p.rha,,H th.v may b« r.gard.Hl aa guilty pf ' ^ ^ 
^K;»(l.g.m.:. groaa u..glig(,„<.o aa it i. atylocl. b,,nlo th,y 

maVf h 'l?"'^ * ^»."^«f .*»»*- «'«•« and of the obliga: / . . 
lum«ofth««ttpk cannot fMrontortaini^. ^ . , 

JUa mon,«ver. argM^d' that the Bank aHoua* hW« * 
«I.pl.ed Hdoner to the appellants, on.e fhe hill of Xg ' 
wuctranalerred to them. They allowed too long a time 

to elapH,^th»j wore guilty of groan neglig„uJi„ thb ' 

particular and thereby they forfeited thdr dain. to the 
...rgo or the value thereof. THia i. a curioua Mea I 
wuuld .appear from the evidence that aome time In^fore the 
^argo arrm-d ni Montreal. uccOrdi.|g.to ^Jeddall'a atat^ 
ment to the Bank and the date of ita probable arrival, the 
wheat wa« half way acroaa the Atlantic, owing to ;hat 
.H deHcnbed a* an •• overaight " of th. appdlanta. WhI 
would hav. r,een the uaeful reault ol' diligence tmde 
tUecircumatanceay Simply an empty formality-anl 
•ould har^ no Wring on thia caHe. a-aidea/ I am not 
aware, that either our law. oi the cuatom oM^, i„ Z 
m^tera ij^poaoa any such diligenc^ «ticU>bligationa 
on t^e feolder of a bill of lading as aecur^y for ad^i^^c^ 

Th «" rK7"^^' *"^*^^^ been«a4e i7tit ^at^" 

. 80 no doubt It would have been, but for thi^.miaconduct 
he oversight of the appellants in delivering the ^go J^ 
th.X did and when they did. If holders of bills of^ng 
<aini^ present case, are bound to exercise this-kind of 
^St^i th 'fl^'y^'^-^P^^^^^-^^on. a^ainS th'etvef 
«g*ts and the delinquencies of public carriers ; this kind 

our statutes will remain, in a great measure, a dead litter ' 
I am quite prepared to admit that a liUle more ci elm-' 
spection and diligence should have been eterci^X , 






1*1 



. 




V. 



■i^ 



.3f 



v*;"^;: 




•^w 



92 



MONTREAL LAW KEF0RT8. 



1«M. 



>:•■■ 




\'i' '-It' 
I' 



I f 

I it 
It,' 



the advances had been nmde and the bill of lading deli- 
AWifejiTOT^Vered to thvs Bank^' But the only practical result would 
M* *B k ^*^* been, -that they would have found out, somewhat 
an g^yijgy jjQ^ completely they had been defrauded by Bed- 
> dall & Co. and that through the gross negligence of the 

• . appellants. For all these reasons I am clearly of opinion 
~\. that both in law and in equity, the judgment of the Court 
should be confirmed A^ith costs. 
Cross,^. :^— . ■ ^ , 

As appears by the bill of lading produced in this case,*^ 
. „ Reynolds Bros, shipped from Toledo 1Q,600 bushels red 
winter wheat by the, schoon^ Falmouth, L. D. Becker, 
master, bound" for Kingston, Ontario, the Gargo to be deli- 
-, veTed as per address in the margin as follows :" Order 
° ■ " Reynolds' B^;p8. ; notify Crane & Baijd, Montreal, P.Q.; 
" care St. Lawrence & Chicago Forwarding Co.," imply- 
ing that, although the voyaige of the schooner ended at 
i Kingston, the cargo was intended to be put in charge of the 

appellants, d^tined for Monlreal, Crane & Bairdiobeput 
,- upon their diligeuee by jaotice for^ any in^j^est they had 

or might acquire in thiS 4aTgo. | ^ -^- : • 

The'Falmouth atrivedAPortsmoiith, neay Kingston, on 

the 3rd or 4th of Septeml^er, 1880, where ithe'^appellahts, 

accustomed to take charge of similar cargoes for Crane & 

Baird, received it, and pUt it on board Ipne of their barges, 

the Mohawk, together with 4,000 bn^els similar wheat 

transhipped from the schooner "Willie jKeeler. 

The appellants, acting as agents for the. owners of the 

^ cargo, or whomsoever it might concern, the ordinary car- 

jp riers for Crjtne & Baird; paid the lake freight to the master 

. "of the Falmouth, taking a receipt, which runs^as follows: 

- i'>- . Kingston, PoBTSMocTu Habboub, / " 

-''' " 6th September, 1880. 

" $990. Received from the St Lawi^anoe and Chicago Forwarding G),, 
'}/» agents for '«^ie' owners of cargo, the sum of $990, being payment in. 
*^j(pfoll of freight on cargoes wheat carried in schooner Falmouth, ifrom 
" Toll3do to Kingston, Portsmputh Harbour, and all other claims t» data 
-^ '. '■ • •; ^ • ^"(Signed), L.D.Bhcehb."^ 

' ': ' '^For tlieiri^iftibutsements they drew tipoa Crane S 
-> . Bafltd for thicK^tlay. J" 






\- 



-I. 



/ 






lading deli- 
jsult would 
, somewhat 
led by Bed- 
snoe of the 
of opinion 
•f the Court 



this case, 
ushels red 
D. Becker, 
to be deli- 
s : " Order 
Teal, P. Q.; 
^, " imply- 
r ^nded at 
Large of the 
d to be put 

they had 

ingSton, on 
appellants, 
r Crane & 
eirbarges, 
ilar wheat ' 

(^rs of the 
LiiiATy ear- 
ths master 
& follows: 



COURT OF QUEEira BENCH. 



\i 



98 



No new bill of lading was issued by%. lUger of th« ism 

lading of the Falmouth as follows • " R«rfliC Ik . 

St L A-n P r«« '• J X " "^^ ^^eiVed this cargo, 
St L. & C. R Co., signed J; H. Macf^tlaue," thus cDnsti 
tuting themselves agents or trustees ^^ o^ZlT^ 
cargo, with the knowledire that th! h.n rX ^® 

A'livetablMo.theprd^ffR^^^^^^^^ 

tado with^the cargo as consignees or otherwise The 

appellants, apparently from the ,iirst, lool^dn^^^^^^^ 

as consifirnees. sx\A thaf +y»„^ ^ . ^ . ^^^ ^mm^ 



Z"t!^rr^.M!':?. -"^ -.i-|«.«~|^ 



Tha Mohawk loft Kingstou onlke kb fiepttaber in 
company with the barge Alfred, alCf C^Iw 
v««el, «.rr3j.„g the balance of the ™rgo M toe TOUe 
fceler the Mohawk robbing Montreal L «r X,„T^h: 

C:«elSte^tl,tted'"Ift ^^ '^'■'* "^ 
st.an.»hip Canadian iSo btllt and on .tKtb sfo" 
lender to the steamship Daltoh. for M^or B™*i Z" 

;f the 4.00 burfje. whthUbrrr.^ xi^: 

"i^** from the schooner Willie Keeler 

SO^s'.^'" ""''1 r»° °' *« """""k, bonsiStTrig of 



" No. 3907. 



^ONTBEAL, nth September. 



" pv ^T?"""" ^ ^^'«^«« Towage Co. 






"n. 




" (Signed), . 


Cbane $c Baibd, 


.'■■■^' ■■■■■ 1 
J 






• 


^ 


1 


n 


' 






■^ 



\ ' 



<'' 



t^f 



' > ■ n ■ ■ ■ -^ ■ ■ ' ■ ■ " ' .■ 

■■ • ■ . . ■,, . ■.:-.- *^ ; r .. '. • 

^'^ . . •■■ ■' ■ • ,■ '> ■ , ■ -. ■ 

94 MONTREAIi LAW R^PORTa 

Bushels. 
Ad&F^" September 14th, ex MoKawk to steamship Pe^ 
wa,ti.„,co. .^^ j^^ Beddall & Oo...i.. ,.... 8 088 

MolBOM Bank. „ « \ , ,.,, . ,„ . , ^ '. " ' 

September 16th, ex Alfred tor steamship Pepina 

for Beddall & Co. 6,456 

'' September Itfh, ex Alfred to steamship Pepina 

for Beddall & Co 5^524 

" September 18th, ex Alfred to barque Sarah for 

Beddall & Co .'.,... , 429 

;_ _ _4^._.„_;,_^_.,J_^;;_^„.^^_ „_..^:_„:__i^^^___„„_^„^._ 15,486 

The appellants paid for fourteen bushels, the quantity 
short on the entire of the cargoes oC the Falmouth and 
"Willie Keeler, making the last mentioned delivery amount 
to net 15,500 bushels. 
On the 14th September, Beddall & Co. applied for. and 
• obtained from the Molsons Bank an advance of $16,216 
on the strength of the bill of lading per schooner Fal- 
mouth, which then bore the following endorsement : — 
"Reynolds A; Co. 

" D. Macphie, Esq. ' 

" Deliver to Messrs. Beddall & Co., or order, 15,500 
" bushels of the within cargo. 

- "Signed, Crane & Baibd. 

" Endorsed, Beddall & Co." 
The transaction was entered in the special loan book of 
the bank as follows : — "September 14. Demand Loan, t 
"p. c, $i6,2t5. Bill of lading dated 28th August, 1880, 
"16,550 bushels No. 2 red wheat: 15,600 endorsed over 
"by Crane & Baird. Schooner Falmouth, Toledo, O." 

The Molsons Bank, contending that the loan they made 
never having been repaid, and the wheat pWged to them 
never having been delivered to them, nor tiie proce^^s 
thereof paid to them, they are entitled, as the 'holders of 
the Falmouth's bill of lading,- to call upon the appellants 
as the carriers of the wheat, i»^pToduce it or to pay them 
its value, Thejr have accordingly brought their suit to 
enforce the claim so made by them, in which suit they 

' . . *t . . ■ - . ., , 



,. <H 



Bushels. 

..... 8,088 
»ina 

6,456 

dna 

5,624 

for 



15,486 

3 quantity 
douth and 
iry amount 

id for. and 
of 116,276 
)oner Fal- 
nent : — 

er, 15,500 

Saibd, 
; Co." 
m book of 
d Loan, t 
■ust, 1880, 
ftaed over 
io, O." 

hey made 
d to them 
proce^^s 
lolders of 
ppellants, 
pay them 
ir suit to 
suit they 



OOUliT OP QUEEN'S BEN^ 




u'Bg? 



^1 • -ft^ e--^r, ' 



96 



of lading which thev alul k T *'' • ""^"'I "H """f « 

ca.«o ,eS,hed it tL' £ t mZ^ ^.t'r"' '".' ' "" 
!.»*», a8 ™ch forwarders, wer. St„ h i"" 'PP* 
...d secured the «„rre„de; omet:^;;^.:;';,^:-"^'^ ' 

^r:;xt%rh;!:^r;L:S"^f ^^^^^^ • 

they did not Wertakel Zry tewW "'"''""' *'* 

underthebillofladin^ofthTl^^t ::;,;St°" '= -" 
were no party, but undertoolc to carry LL ^'' 

iBoftheFalmonthandWilU-lT?^ ""■8°°«'""'' 

Messrs/Crane & B.L tT. ' ^- "' '""" ^"SSton, for 

whom they wet duty deC^Tr/'"''' ""'^' «» 
explained ; that the attemn IJ j *' """"■«' ^'"'"ly 

cargowaaWjita^'dSt^tTrt'''''' ''''■' ' " 

long after the dne deliverv of th. t f"^ *'""'™^ '»'«' 

ftuik Was guiltrof JIL. „ I '^'*"' ""' "»' «»'«>■« 
MolsonsCTJaC;;^?!7»"«' matter. That 

authorized BedWl TSo * eto if^ "'A'"'""^* ■""• 

which it was dons ^d ™L. , .? <■ " ""' "'«^" >"• 

»f l«Ung the aU^.r^rt :^^^ *" r^ '"'^ % 

•grainst them' wherehv thl w i "^ i ''«'>«'8e drawn » * 

j^ which t^e MS^'^'S:^^^rr.r ■""• 

ftom a broker the exchan«Ip3|a^t'*;^ 

paid for it in caah without ^Sfewn'"" 1^ 

The b,ll of ladin'g, endorsementi and orden. .fc 
femd to are put in proof aa well aa ^e dS • f "" 
wheat, the advance of the b^k Id tl. ""^ °' ""> 

'-".m their special C b." fc ^ •"" *«" "■'''^ "^ «>« 

appellants into the" ba^ m^'" V^I^PP^ ^^ *>•» 
both controlled «,ddisn35f 7'' '"^ ^"■"d. were 

;r^r:^-£^9thr.^av 



1; 






''!■ ^ ><■ 



■ ~f - 



1 






A 



>6 



? , MONTREAL LAW REPOItyS, 



1884. 

St Lawrenoo 

>V ChioiiKO For 

wanting Co. 

• * 
Molnonii uiuik. 



'■*^. 




MoIhous Bank failed to got /their quantity or any part of 
it from any source. Witnpspes have also been examined 
in support of the alleged imstom of trade, which imposes 
the obligations incurred under the first bill of lading upon 
the carrier, who accepts a cargo carried to an intermediate 
port to forward it to its final destination by, an additional 
transit, and such ultimate carrier being requiired to pro- 
cure the surifendei; of the original bill of lading, to free 
himself from responsibility, and have given their opiniouH 
affirmatively on these propositions. 

An attempt was also made on behalf of the appellants 
to show that the Molsous Bank go^ the bills of exchange 
drawn against the last delivery of wheat which Beddall 
appears to have claimed was a repayment of the loan, and 
although it may be supposed his view of the imputation 
of certain subsequ(;njt payments left the advances in ques- 
tion covered, this is not consistent with the statement of 
the bank manager, Mr. Elliott, who explains that t^is 
being a special loan, the money subsequently received 
applied to other transactions. Mr. Beddall being shortly 
after the trausdctions in question suffering from his last 
illness, and having died soon after, his explanation could 
not be obtained, as part, of the evidence ; but it appears 
certain'that if the Molsons Bank did not recover the wheat 
in question, they would fall short of being covered to an 
amount at least equal to 1;^at in dispute in° this suit. As 
a ground of defence, this pretension of the appellants may 
be discarded as not proved., 

Theu as re^rds the grounds on which the liability of 
the appellants ii».^laimed; such liability if it exists must 
result from the obligations assume^ by them in accepting 
the cargo at Kingston, and a failure\)n their pdrt to fulfil 
these obligations. The first enquiry should be, therefore, 
as to the extent of these obligations. T*he uskge "of trade 
might be useful in determining the manner a^d conditions 
on which cargoi^s in the like circumstances were forwarded 
to their destination, but could scarcely alter the established 
significance of the documents used, or the legal relations 
of the parties according to the fac|8 of th^ case^ or make 



<fiif'i^A5^f(^t- ^'.(Wt^V V 



p. 



siwf 1' 



If"! 




COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. 



97 



mfnUnf W ^ upon obtain^g the sun^nde/of a docu- ^m. 

aTv ln« Lt '""*'^ '*' '®^^«^«y ^»d «^»«ed'to have «^ '-r-noo 
any operation. , i """'^ a cfaiong,) Kof 

lae appollanls^eing carriers, acoepiting t oanro with "»i«™""«i. 
ho knowledge o*he condition, and^objects 7XS 

3weTt;?-'^ "• ^i^^'"* '"»* " "■«» ""^ ".^e 
aeiiveraoie to theorderof Revnolds ;&■ n^ fk»* A j 

tinationwa, Montreal, and th^m?^; "^^f^ 
llv^.^: dtiv"?'."? ""' '^^«P'»»^'« teo£.pon tC 

..hold the <»rgo in wt^ie ^ *r;:r "bn^itT 

K.ii p 1 J . r P ™ r^ 'ne owner or holder of thw 

d»r^"*' r" *'"' /pP«"«»t« contend they Lye 

whe^rrJ^ whetj.er. title to the dejiyerjr of the 

the bill of l»Zr!^K Tv ^™ **''°™'' ™* poised 

mvt .H.Tt5!i H**^'- ^« MoUns Bank got 

eonse^Mntly hwre beerj^holden, of it. ^.d thi, acy>.d. 

/ ■ ' . . , ' . ' / . ■ 



/: 




r*- ^^1 



-/^ 



98 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTa 






II 



r 






f.v 



\m\ y^ith tho Ms^mption of the appellant8\that Crane & Baird 
.UJhlSiUnrr. wore tho consignooB of tho cargo, which other facts would 
wi.r.iiniiCo. j^g^,jj^ ^Q indicate, although perhaps notVonclusiveljr as to 
'^"""""""""tho exact tira^ at which the cargo was flssigneddka them. 
There is no djate to the partial endorsement by Crane & 
Baird to Beddall &f Co., it being in tho form of an order 
addressed not to the appellants but to D. Ma<;phie who, 
it is true, was at the time agent and manager ^br^tho 
appellants although not so qualilied in this order ; but a* 
it was only on the |^th September that Beddall presented 
himself at thfe^'^olsons Bank to obtain a loan, the pre- 
,,, sumption is that Beddall & Co. did not get their title 
before the 14th, and certainly Molsons Bank could have 
had uo title before that date, but at that date none of the 
cargo of the Falmouth remained } it had all been delivered, 
into ocean-going vessels, oii the order of Crane & Baird " 
at that time in possession as assignees of the Falmouth's 
bill of lading, and consequently established as the true 
consignees of the cargo. There was, no doubt, intended 
to be substituted in place of it the wheat ex Willie Keeler, 
900 bushels of which only had been absorbed in the pre- 
; ' vious deliveries ; hence the order addressed to the appel- 

lants, dated ^Ith September, " Please deliver Messrs. 
Beddall & Co., or bearer, 15,500 bushels," applying- to 
wheat that remained of the cargo of the Willie Keeler, and 
being doubtless the substituted wheat intended to be 
transferred to the Molsons Bank in place of the cargo of 
the Falmouth, and being only for part of the cargo, viz., 
15,500 bushels, remaining in place of the full cargo of 
16,400 bushels, the difference, 900 bushels, having been 
absorbed in the previous deliveries ; consequently, when 
the loan wais granted, no wheat of the cargo of the Fal- 
mouth remained, nor could be transferred to the Molsons 
Bank, and the substituted wheat, according to the prei 
I \ tensions of Beddall and the respondents, was afterwards 

accounted for to the Molsons Bank, but not as far as the^ 
proof goes in such manner as to extinguish th^ loan in 
question. The negotiability of bills of lading has never 
^ beeii put upon the exact footing of bills of exchange. If 



M 



ti 



w 



r A*^-' ' 



■v I 



COURT OP QUEEira BENCH. 



99 



ZtVwL X*^ negotiable bills whose date of ma' V-^- 
TbLT f*'*"- ^? ^^^'^"^ bill of exchange Z*'!^9'^"'^ 

previous, holder orabi,"^ ^^'^1^ iT^'Tl '' ' 

on a bill of lading ,honM „ ^''f™™ •»■> "dvancnr 
Groinir vesHoln if ia «„ I ^wpryBenr. witn sea- 

tr ^ ""«" ™ oJmJ wl he bL.n»k .h"; ^ 

bill, and an unreasonable time elRn«a/ ili- .u ^^ 

enquiry concerning it Al Jll^ before they made 
seem to have been piviou t Z^/T' ^'^'^'. ^"^""^«« 
19th October that tSTZ^^ T^ ' '* '"'^ "^* "«*" th^ H 

theappellantst^tw^eat™^^^^^^^^^ ^ 

would hold the carrier unt 1 he r.^ .u'^ ^ "^^'"^ ' 
of the bill of ladin Jof th«l ^ ""^ ''^^ surrender 

reasonable. ^ **"' P^evio^scam^r would not be 

holder of a bill of ladinl til" ! ""^ *^*'^»^** ^^ *be -^ 

endorsement^ a^^'tSCt^'X*""^'''^^"^'*'^ 1 " 
goods, and all rights and L^v ^^"^''^t^P of the . ' 

held to pass thereby rth^i'"'''^'^^ " 

;^rtei:div^^:^^^^^ 

' not be qnite so «npW TV 1.°^ *" advances, may 

follows -..And sich bilT'^-fTj^' " "• *'™' " « 
"ceipt beinir Co ac^Bi-vS l,'^.^°«' 'J^M^'ion or re- 
-date of L-CS^;.''''''7T " "" •'""^ ft»» fte 

"«.o..stpSrh:M™aS,.tbts«,f 'i'" »^ 






J 
i 






J 



■|-v 



h-f?,i^x '^\ii 



100 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTa 






a 






[}■ 



# 



f 


< 




*) 

1 










"«• parted with all his intorust in the cargo. Could any title 
JthhltZI^JpT- to it PftH" to tho Bank under the circumstances ? 
w.Min,<J. tpj^,,^^ jg j^ further difficulty :— Was the order j?iven by 
"""""'"'""•Crane & Baird to Beddall i<5;Co. on the back of the Fal- 
mouth's bill of lading an endorsement of it ? The order 
was addressed not to the appellants but to Macphie, 
without any indication of quality as agent or otherwise, 
and, therefore, inc^Smplete, even a« a delivery order. It 
was not for the entire cargo but only for a portion therool". 
It was, in fact, not an endorsement, but a mere delivery 
(^ ordbT, therefore of no effect until the holder of the wheat 
shoiald attorn to the person who was to receive, and con- 
* / sent to hold on his account, or at least be ndtified to do so. 
Beddal]i^& Co.'s signature after this order was rather an 
endorsement of the order than an' endorsement of the Fal- 
mouth's bill of ladingi^ . 

The Superior Court, however, took a different view of 
the case, and held that the Molsons Bank had got a valid 
transfer of the bill of lading of the Falmouth; that its 
conditions were obligatory on the appcUaiktS^who were 
liableldisth^ cargo, having failed to procure t^t surrender 
of the Faljnouth's bill of lading whefti Iheiy |>arted with 
the cargo. They consequently conddinned the appellants 
to Restore the wheat in question, or pay its value. This 
Court, for the reasons abote given, reverses that judg- 
ment and dismisses the action of the Molsons Bank. 

DoRiON, 0. J. : — ' \^ 

' I concur in the judgment of the maiority of the Court. 

The bill of lading was an obligation to carry the wheat 
from Toledo to Kingston, and deliver it either to Bey-nolds 
or his assigns. The wheat a|Tived at Kingston, and was 
^v' delivered there to the ForwaMing, Company.'. They^ were 

acting for Crane & Baird, who were the holders of* the 
original bill of lading. When^^me carrier who had signed 
the bill of lading^SSlivered ^it Kingston his obligation was 
fulfilled. But it IS said that the Forwarding Company 
_ which carries ^oods from Kingiton to Montreal had 
become liable ^r the obUgationsl of anoth^ company 



^ 



^^■WTCf '"■' 






COURT OF QUEEN'S ItENCii 



A 



101 



1M4. 



Tu't^T^'If "^''^ '"'^ "P**" *^« ^"1 of lading at all. .- 
Ibo hili ofladmg wa« at an end when the whoat waH*«k!-'~n. 
dohvered at Kingston. No doubt the Forwardin., n w.r!i"i« 



dohvered at Kingston. No doubt the Forwarding Com- 
pany had an obligation to fulfill. They wer« liable to 
Crane & Bttird, and they delivered the whoat to Crane & 
Baird four or five days before the Molsons Bank ever came 
mto pibssession of the bill of lading. There is no authority 
for the pretension that the <arricr was bound to take ba<k 
the bill of lading. The Molsbns Bank trusted Beddall 
who deceived them. The appellants delivered goods to 
the rightful owner and their obligation ceased there. 
Ihoreforo the pank has no claim against the Forwarding 
Company, and the judgment of the Court below, which 
maintained the action of 'the Bank, is wrong. There is 
another point : I doubt whether there was a valid transfer 
ol the bill of lading, as only a part of the goods was 
included m it. However, the decision of the Cotart does 
^ Tk Vfu* o^ this point. The ground of the judgui^mt i« 
.that the bill of lading had become etftJte when the goods 
were delivered at Kingston. i^, 
Ramsay, J.:— ' 

The bank brought an action on a bill of lading trans- 
terred to^the bank for an advance to the firm of Beddall 
&to. Thebill of lading is in the following form:— 

„,, ,. , TotBDo,0., August 28, 1880. 

tJr^ > ^"^ ""^^^ »"•* oondiUon by ReynoWa Bros., as agente and 
forwH^lors. for iiccount and at the risk of whom it may concern?^; tol^ 
It^T' ^''^'"«""'- *henK>f a D. Becker is master, bound f^m^.^ 

.^Jr» °*^*^"' ^"**"°' "'^ ^•*"°*"« articles as here marked Td dZ 
nbod. to be delivered in h^ke good order aid condition, «, addr^ 7„ 

Sox^p^"^ " ""^^^ *"'^* ^t"*^" of navigat^on^r^'Jl;! 
mlm^?^^''"^^:.^'' •**•* ""^ °^"*'^ ^«««' hath afflrmcl to two 

16.500 bush. No. 2 red wheat 
Freight to Kingston to be 
(Signed), « "^-t^ I*' burial. , 



iloacn JToiw 
'•nlint r 

Mulioni BkoJb 



•I: 



I 



8.D. BvJKBB, 

Order Beynolds Bros. Notify Crane 4 Bird, Montreal, P. Q.^^ 



in 











f- 


A. 1 



«3 



'4k 



"^ 



102 



MONTREAL LAW REl^ORTB. 



IHMI. 



LoiWniiKiu A ChlciiKo ForwiiniiiiK ('"xuiNUiy mi r«irlMiiuuUi Usrliunr, owr 
KiiiKHtoii, I^ako Ontario. 



Tli«< dtu'lurutioiithoii gooM on to allogn that thn m«^anin^ 



4 






Hi lutwruima 

M t'lili'iiKii I'ifr- 

wiinlinv Ui. 

A 

M..i|.H,. lui.k, ,1,1(1 iiitfiit of tho luldnwH on th» iimrji^in of thn bill of 
• lading wiiH, that th« whuut Hhould bo carried and con- 
vt'yt'd to Portmnonth I [arbour on board tho Falmouth, and 
thon bo doliv»»r»'d t6 tho appolhuitH, to b<j carried and con- 
voyod by thom t^ Montroal, and to bo th«ro dolivored to 
tho ordor of R«'ynold»i Ikos., and that th« naid firm of 
Cruno & Haird Hhould bo notified of the arrival of the 
wheat. That, upon tho execution of tho bills of lading, 
Bo<-ker delivenwl the original to Reynolds Bros., aqd 
retained the copy or duplicate. Thot Reynolds Bros, en^ 
doi-Hed the original bill of lading, and delivered it to Crane 
iSc Baird and that Crane & Baird thereupon endorsed it 
8p«'«ially by an ondorHemenf uddnwsed to D. MacjPhic, 
tho agont of the upi>ellant8, by whi(;h endorsement they 
r.'»juir»'d him to^ deliver to Messrs. Buddall & Co., 16,600 
buMholH of tho «.argo montioii<>d in the bill of lading, they 
(Crane & ,H«ird) paying all freight charges. That having , 
so ondorsod the bill, Crane ^ Baird delivered it to Beddall 
& Co. That, Iry the custom of trade and of merchants from 
. time immemorial, when grain destined for Montreal is 
.shipped from Western ports like Toledo, on. a schooiler 
lilfo tho Falmouth, under bills of lading like the one set 
forth in the declaration, such grain is conveyed on board 
tho H(rhooner to Portsniouth Harbour and is there tran- 
shipped from the schooner into other veiysels belonging to 
other <arriers by water, to be by them conveyed to 
Montreal, and to b«' there delivered in accordai^ce with 
tho terms of the bill of lading, or according to inibtractions 
/ - received from the master of the schooner. And that, by 
such custom, the grain go transhipped is. couveySd to 
Montreal by such other carriers, and delivered there -in 
I accordance with the terms of the bill of lading, or insti^c- 
tions received from the master. " - ^ 

It was farther alleged that Beddall & Co., being holders 
of the bill and owners of 16,600 bushels of the wheat, 
obtained the advance in^question to tho extent of $16,275 
I'rom the 'Sank on the 14th Septembef/l880. 



.- f .- 



■ ■ ■ p 



OODBT OK gUiUBN-B fllCNCa 



loa 



,/ 



who put it on board of on. of thoir burK,. .,a Ul X ""^'^^ 
Mohawk, and .t arrived at Montreal on the, llth of H^ptom- "'-r "-".. 

d'-ifvo'i^d "• ""^^ '"''f ^"" *^'f •* ^^'^^ ^'-^ '^'--^y 

Th« ap,H,ilartt« met thi^ action by a demurrer, which' ' 

bill of ladmg m quoation. that it wan hot on the 14th of ' ' 

September a negotiable inntrument. that even if it wan a 

nttJ ■ f ' "^"^ "''''''^ '"*« '^y defendantH wa« not 

a |H,rtioit of any eonvention set out in the bill of ladinir 

L"tl w'ithT"*" '"^ no"-»WtiabIe agreement entered 
into with the owners of the eargo in Montreal and written 

V i™ *u V lunner say that at the same time the 

h^mouth arnved at Portsmouth, another schooner. Z 

Tml tl r /• "^ "'*^^"^ ^***» ^^•'♦^^O bushels oi^ the 
samq kind of wKeat consigned to Crane & Baird thli 
mo bushels of the Willie /eeler's cargT;ert puT^'to th 
Mohawk with the cargo of the Falmouth, the rest of he 

'fiT/Sr T u"*" ^""^'^ **°^*^k »»d Alfred started 

tnf .7. ^^'r '**^^ ""^«^ «° «' "^bout the lUh 
^Pt.. and then and there 16.600 bushels of the cargo of the 

Mbhawk was. on the order of Crane & Baird. delivered to 

the steamship Canadian, and 1.000 bushels t; the st^il' 
hip Dayton making the total of the cargo of the Moha^ 

14th day of September aforesaid. Messrs. Crane & Baird 
endorsed the Pa mouth's bill of lading to Messrs. BeS 
* Co., m the following terms :— *«~u«ui 

"D.MacPhie,EBq4, 

(Signed), GBAm A Baibi». " 






t 
J . 



»^J «(R^JtWW'fp»^«^>, 



r 



i « 



tOl 



IMI. 




IiMMSAI. law RRI't)Rm 






I 



I > 



1 



la'" ' 

m 
1^9 



itL-r. ,. '* '*^^ »!%«** *h»* whp5^ Orttf^t 9c Boird and Iteddnll 
^'««^"!^* * <'o. ^iidor««Hl tthe bill of lading to <hc^ hunk, tlmy kimw 
tdiat th« wheat had btn^n drtlivored. the 4«f»uidttiit« fur- 
|fc*T aljegy that on tht« 14ift H4>t»mb(tr tho firm of CTrafi.' 
1^ BAird giivw to Boddall k Co., th« following order for th." 
iiaviliti wt^dattxl Montreal, I Ith t**\H«mlmr lH8o":— 

"Ntt 3,967. ^' * 

"8t. lAwnmon A riili^jfi) Forwanliiitf Co. 
" I'loMti <lii|lv«r MMMra. IkntaKll 4 Ci*., or Uwror, linooii Utouwuul (Ivii 
liiitiilnitl (IA;»4N)) IhmIioIn nul wiiitiir wtKWtttx IwruM. 

"(SIgnfki,) CiuNR A TTAWa 

" IVr M. J. <>»lg.» 

That in ohudien04} to thi» order the defendants delivered 
to Uuddall ^ Go. : 

14tii Hin»UiiiilK»r, «x liaruw Mohawk to vhip I'o- 

|iliiH, IiunIhiIh J, ]|,0H8 

17th Ho|>Uiuihur, ox haryo J^ltnd tu sliip ith 
y piim, biwhobi.....i.,^4i(..... (|,446 30-<J0 

IHth H«»iit4»inl)t(r, ox bargu Alfr&d, to ihtp hv 

|)iu», bualiolH 6,5^4. . 



. ■■ '^'.v' ■■■■ 

\ ,'1 



IIumIioIm ...16,U67 

18th Hotiluinbor, ox harKO AlfixNl to iihi|t ttluh, 

,.mm... 420 

ToUl buHhola *,. . 16,486 



buahobi 



80-00 



80-^ 



That these dulivorieH wore made without tho^ production 
of any bill of lading whatever, and that plaintiffs wore 
aware that B. h Co., had received this wheat, and had 
authorized them to ship it to Europe. 

I^will 1)0 seen that there is no material difference Ihj- 
twc*^ the parties as to the question ol' fact, and that tho 
decisioii of the Court mqst be based on questions of law, 

Tho Banking Act of 1880, 48 Vic. e. 22, s. 7, substiti '" 
certain provisions for sections 46, 4<lil7, 48, 49 and 
the 48f Vic. cap. 6. The substituted section 46 pro^ 
thftt, " the; bank may acquire and hold any warenouse 
rec«ip|ojr bill of ladinjp^ as collateral security for the \pay- 
meat ^nttft^dpht incurred in its favor in the course of its 
bankin]|Mn|ik|i,- 'i^d the warehouse receipt or bill 6f 
l^i^fif ^9isBmS^^m^^^\H tlie bank, from the dftt^of 




:? 



If • 



« 

viMUM I 

i,«iltuai 



Ikii on 

(Ifiivor 

on frnn 

liitliMg ; 

oil the 

under t 

no righ 

Th«^ H 

worifi ' 

all^ecel 

by an 

^ Where t 

Avow 

I mi out a 

1 -whether 

' obljgatio 

wore rec 

not one < 

^on th( 

f»^ to me thi 

buying I 

eiiote. 

At the 

I'omparin 

bills of lu 

But thert 

by endon 

80 of th 

^ile in \ 

lading 

specific ol 

uot pass v 

regard to 

Of ooun 



■1!-. 



llUlUHUUi livil 



the dat 


^of 


>:^'' 


- '1 




»/- 



oomix ortjomri bhich. 







th. *.'q«Wtlo,. th«roof.%ll thirright .nd tidi, 
V.MU- h.,hl.,r or ow,.„r Ihtm^pf. .„d „„a«r tb« 
^».ihmd^ : 1, Tha^ tho hill «n«diiitf wm eKtm.^,,^ 

„ J'l^'r 'f ^""O tt*«d h«r« n. shall inmr^rj- . 

wore reoeiTod to K>me other pl^e If L. ,1, ? ^ 
no. one of the document, to ^hth th Zlk^T^, Z 
(r*I'outheqtt«liti„ofa.,goli.bilityn.fer™j,r*rr ^ 
-, to me that thi. i. .nothof w«y 7«.v °,?fhlt' ,h !!T 
Jj^g bee., delivered undo^h'e-hlll-V^:^^:^.'^ 

At the argument some little confusion was rr««*«^ k 

'egud to . warehouse r«»ipt i„ miJL^ S^V"" < 
Of coa^o the p«tie. to the bill of WUng^XlrMi. ' 
* ^ L. G J. left . :■- '' •■ , ■* .^ iir . 



/^ 



/ 1 



♦ 



^■> 



> ■ ': 



--"J^'' 



^^ 



i\' 









ft? 



An 



' •? 



.'VW4. 



f 



}06 



•:^/ 



M0|7TIt£AL IiA% B^FORm 



I' 



-Mf 



ferred it tp the bank are lial)le fbcv'the production of tKe 

A^ISIlSJJ*Pw-gooas or to indemifify.t^^ impossible to 

warding (M. conceix^ott wka1^pnncip^ie^tJie''if]^p0lH^^ who are not 

."■ "liable on .tli4 biIl*of "lading-iu* anyway, can be condemned 

upon it. 'There may be some special paction that might 

implicate th^ appellants, but its existence is not even 

suggested. The action contends they were custodians of 

the wheat un4er the biM of lading, which clearly they 

'were not. The majority of the Court is to reverse. 

The following was the written judgment in appeal :— 

. "The Court * * * ; 

" Considering that the respondents have failed to prove 
the material allegations of their declaration, 0(r that the 
" s appellants' became parties to, or asaqthed the ssime obliga-, 
tions as the master of the schooner Falmouth contained iu 
the bill of lading by him granted for the carriage of the 
• 16,500 bushels of wheat in question in this cause from 

^Toledo to Eingstoh, or that they, the respondents, had a 
valid assignnjient of the said bill of lading, or of any part 
of the cargo represented thereby, before it had been ful- 
' filled, was Exhausted and had become effete ; And con-, 
sidering that the appellants hav(^ proved that prior to any 
pretended assignment of the said bill of lading to the 
respondents, they, the appellants, delivered the said 16,600 
bushels o£ wheat to the ord^ of the ^aid Crane & Baird 
as the true- holders of the said bill of lading and con- 
signees of the said 16,500 bushel's of wheat, and entitled 
to receive the same ; 

"Alid considering that in the judgment rendered in 
this cause by the Superior Court at Montreal, on the 19th 
November, 1881, there is error : 

*" The Court of our Ltidy the Que^n, How here, doth 
reverse, cancel, annul, and set aside the said jnd^ent, 
and proceeding to render^e judgment which the said 
Superior Court ought to ab^ rendered, doth dismiss the 
action of the said respondent^ with costs, as well of this 
Court as of the said Superio/Court. 
■ " (Tlie Jlon. Mr. JusticjP^onk dissenting.) ^ ^: — ^^ ' 
." And on motion of ]i^. Girouard & McGibbon, atto^ 



.A-^ 



■'S» 




OOUBT OF QUEE1P8 BENCH. 



107 



,rs- ' 



•" '•■pr 



Ifcost' —"*''*'' **"' ^"""""^ ^""^^ ^^^ ^^^'"^ distractLn m 

, ., St. Lawrence 

_ , .' . * Chioaco For. 

Judgment of S.C. reversed. "•""jJ'Cb. : 



Gifomrd, Wurtele, ^ McGibbon, for appellant.- 
iV. FT. JVenholme, counsel. * 

Abbott, TaU, 4- AbboUs, for respondent. 
S^rocAan Bethune, Q.C., counsel. 



M olaons Bank. 



* 'ii 



Nov. 19, 1884. 
Coram Dobion, O.J., Monk, Ramsay, Cross and Baby, JJ. 
Hoi». G. OUiMET,.ES.QUAL., < 

(Plaintiff in the Comt belfno), 
^ .' Appellant; 



ADOLPHE NORMANDIN,'l-f' 

(Defendant in the Court beityw), 

/ Rbsponi^ent. 

ScluH,lmunicip<UUy-.Actuyn against Secretarytrea^er-Juris. 
(hctum of Superintendent of -Education— AO Vicf^e. 22, s. 22. 

^^W,l. That an action by th^ Superintendent of Education does not «« 
under s. 22 of Vict 40. c. 22. (Q.) against the Sec«ta^lZ«r J a 
school municipality, after he has render^ his ^c^TTd 1« 

mentioned Act and sect id of 41 Vict^ fiTI f ? ,^ *^^® 

.,^*!i & iL . vici., ft 0, the action would not Hn 

Sl^^'i*'!,*™'*^"''"** »*«" P»t in default to bring such ^o^ 
and hiMl refused or neglected to do sa "«Bucnacnon, 

'~^.*X-J^i*''^^ '^*»"' »J"dg«W;f the a^eriwOonrt. 



•.if 



m 






.J 



'J 



>^ 



108 






■i.-*' 



MOltTBEAL LAW B£FOltT& 



J " - ^ 
I 

I ' * 
I. ' 



1 
I 



Hf' 



1884. 

Ouimot 

A 

Nonnondin 




,._si(<»-— 



I ^ 



Montreal, (Tasoherbau, J.), dismissing an action brought 
by the Superintendent of Education against the secretary- 
treasurer of a school municipality, for the recovery of 
the books, records &nd papers of his office, for the pay- 
ment of the balance alleged to be due by him, and for pen- 
alties. 

The following was the judgment appealed from : 

"LaCour, etc 

" Gonsid^rant que la pr68ei|ie action est port6o par lo 
demandeur, en sa quality de snrintendant de I'lnstruction 
Publique de cette province, en vertu de la section 22 de 
I'acte de cette province 40 Vict., ch. 22 (amendant la sec- 
tion 12*7 du chapitre 16 des Statuts Befondus du B. C), 
et qu'il .r6clkme par cette action la somme de |16'7.32 
des deniers des syndics de la minority dissidente de la 
municipality scolaire du village St-Jean-6aptiste, dans lo 
comt6 d'Hochelaga, (lesquels deniers le dit d^fendenr se 
serait ill6galement appropri6s), plus I'amende impost par 
la dite loi statutaire; » 

" Consid^rant qu'il est en preuve qu'apres la resignation 
du dit d6fendeur comme Secr^taire-tr^sorier des syndics 
de la minorite dissidente, le dit defendeur a rendu aux* 
dits S3mdic8 un compte complet et d6taill6 de ses recettes 
et d6penses pour les dix {uinSe^ pr6c6dant sa resignation, 
lequel compte fut par eux soumis a des auditeurs et ap- 
prouvfe par ces derniers ; 

" Gonsiderant que les ;dits auditeurs firent rapport du 
dit compfe et de leur approbation d'icelui, k une assem- 
' bl6e publique, r6gulierement convoqu6e et tenue de tous 
les contribuables dissidents de la dite municipalite, le 1 
d6cembre 1878, et que du cbnsentement des dits syndics 
alors pr6sents, le dit compte et le dit rapport des audi- 
teurs furent alors et la presentes et soumis 4 la dite as- 
sembl^e qui les appronva unanimement apres explica- 
tions ; y , 

"Gonsiderant que la loi potirvoit k Tapprobation des 
comptes d'un Secr6taire-tr68orier d'une municipality sco- 
laire par et au moyen d'une assembl^e publique des cbii- 
triboables, aprds approbation des dits comptes pur les 



m ti* 



'■*•*:• 



V 



"^--^'■"7 



■•, , ■,'»;/• IS, S" « •* tjt jy<^-»- 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. jqq 

«7ndio8 (Statuts Refondus du B. 0. 16. sect. 61), et que 
dans le«p,eele« syndics ont consenti A la dite appX 
t,on faite par les contribuables et y ont particip6 ; 

Consid^rant qu'apr^s la dito assembl6e. le dit d6fen- 
deur fit remise aux dits syndics do tons les livres nanil™ 

n:::;^^^'-''^- appartenanVrkZyn: 
dies et qu 1 avait en sa possession comme leur Secr6taire- 

vait rehquataire par son dit compte, lesquels livres p&- 

? 1 ^,®?^^ * ""P"^ P"' '» d"" section 22 de I'ar- 
t.oIe 4^,, ch. 22, ni a„jot 4 I'action permfee par k m 
eection «„, q„e les dite syndics ne pouvaient quep^r 
aae«t.o4 contra lui, en vertu do la Itio"^ du ^e 
jcte et do ^ section 19 dc Paoto 41 Victori<iJ ch. 6 ZT, 
forma. on. redrossemont on r«J^i„n do comptes,^rpoS 

tenant rtclamte, ot ,ne le domandonr es^iualitrne ™^ ' 
vait lm-m6me .portejf la dito action en dorniJr L? 
tionri^ qn-4 dMant par les dits synZdeT^o^r TS' 
meme^ apr^ avoir iU dun.ontn.is on domourTpt ,, "t 
dem^dour is^nalitt, co qui n'a jamais iti fait f 

Con8.d«rant quo la dito «,tion spfciale, «M.t do droit 
t™t ne ponv.it «re p.rt«e par le dit dT^Tt 

.F.S mise on demoure '^LT^L^Tr^^TZ 
J^aut n.«mo quo 1. prfeonto action sorait ceIl?irS 
Parladlte section 86 de I'acte 40 Vict ch 22 rf^ ? 

' lire '' " ""'' « ^'"' «-'••«-»- -.Ht!:: 

P^vupar Us^tion ^t ^■J::\t^^XX7Ta 






1884. 

Oaimet 

A 

Nomiiuidin. 



l-fM 



i^ Hi 





." \'i 


i 






IS;:^ 


, ^ 


ym 


p 



>■ ■* 



* : 



'/ 



m 
'}§■ 



JPl 



im;i 



1884. 

Ouini«t 

& 

Normnndin. 



, _^,_„p,,..... 



no 



A MONTREAL LAW ftEPORm ^ 

. , ■•' ' / .-,. . . • : • # 

vonlafie'en pr^valoir, et que dans i'esp^ce le 4it demaiV- 
deur 6Ss^^i^it6 avait juridiction pour rendre lui-mddie 
jugement «n la mati^re, si ou Ten eut requis ; / 

" Considferaiit en outre que le d6fendeur a 6tabli p^r la 
preuvA que son dit compte 6tait fiddle, l6gal et r6gulier, 
et qu'il ne s'est pas approprife ill6galement les sommes 
d'ar<?ent mentioun6es en la dficlaration, mais que ies dites 
sommes lui 6taieiat I6galement* dues par les dits syndics 
et devaient 6tre|//pOTt6e8 k son^r^dtt dans le dit compte ; 
" Maintient leA <^f'|lges; eiL*en3^e4»-pr#geatB^^^^^Ktlej^^ 
avec dfepens, disti^ita^Hessieurs Bonin, Archambault & 
Archambault, procjatj^rs du d6fendeur." 

/f. /lAftoW^ for tfid appellant. . •. * 

. H. Archambault for^he respondent. 

Ramsay, J. :— 

This is an' action by ihe Superintendent of Education, 
under 40 Vic.^?. 22, 860(^22, amending the C. S. L. C, ir! 
15, secKl2t, domandingx^from, the former Secretary-/ 
Treasurer of the dissident school municipality of St. Jean/ 
Baptiste Village, a certain sW of I13T.33, being itemi 
overcharged or omitted to be <;^rged in his accounts, and 
also $20 a day from the 11th dajr of June, 18*79, when the . 
notice required by the Statute was given to the defendant, 
until the payment of these various sums of money. ^ 

The defendant pleaded, first,'that he had fully accoui^ 
ed, that his accounts had been audited by persons autho- 
rized to audit the accounts, that his accounts had been 
received and accepted at a public meeting of the rate- 
payers, and that he had paid to the auditors the balance 
in cash, and that he had delivered all the books and 
papers to the President and the Secretary-Treasurer. He 
pleaded, secondly, that haying rendered his account and 
having paid over the balance no action lay at the suit of 
the plaintiff, who had no right even to question the 
accounts, except on the demand of five ratepayers in 
writing— that no such demand had ever been made in 
writing, and even if it had i€ did not entitle the plaintiff 
to bring this action, but that he should have revised them 









Y' '■ 



COURT OF QTTEEirS BENCH. 



Ill 

hirl ^%^'^f: tWrdly.ahat plaintiff could not 
bring th^ action ,n h.s own name withotft Wing sum- 
moned the Trustees to bring the action. 
He pleaded, fourthly,* insufficiency of notice 
In a fifth plea the respondent explains the items 
charged, and says that they were fully admitted by the 
trustees and ratepayers, and that he owes nothinff 

The appellant/ denies that the auditors were properly 
mHnina^,!^ the^truH^ 

"fteTtPorith«t,the auditors .^e de^d by dZl^ 
and that the^ had no authorijto give a re Jpt "*' 

The second pleB is denied%e%erally 

toln/fh *T.^^'* " '' *"'^T"^ ^** ** ™ unnecessary 
to put the t^ustee*«„ demeure, ^r the trustees had endea^ 

voured to compel the defendant to pay, that notice to 
trustees ,s on ly required where there is collWon between 
the secretary-treasurer and the trustees, ank that inThTs 
Z Thif ™ ^^'^^^^ ^*^t«eistig4n of the tr^! 

The fourth plea is generally denied as is io the fifth. 

The first question is whether this action lies. It is 
founded on a Statute passed in 1876, but in 1878 Ihere s 
an amendment to the^onsolidated S.tatutes providing fo " 

d/mlTf fi *^%^^^-^*« of *^« 8;cretary.treasure? In 
a demand of five ratepayers. It is evident that if the pre- 
sent action lies, this amendment of 1878 is valueless Bu" 
there 18 an amendment to the section of, the laTof 1876 
on which this action is brought which seems Z give an 
explanation of the Statute, and to limit its ^feJalitT 

fficrjr wVo\ '"^^ T"^' ^^y secretary4;^urer in 
oftce. or who has ceased to be in offiee. /or an« sum of 

<^otI^ scholar dues during his tenure of office, if the W 
m^ers &il to do it after being put en ^ J^^. 

The action, therefore, only lies if the commissioners 



1884. 

Onlmet 

Nomuindln.' 



/; 



^ii 







r-'flp' 



* 112 



UM. 

Oulmtt 

NifriUandin, 




MONTREAL LAW REK>BTa 



won't act after being summoned so to do, and for the re- 
covery of certain kinds of indebtedness. This enactment 
renders the Act of the 40 Vic, reasonable. In this case 
the trustees did not fail to move after being put en 
demeure, so the action as regards the $22,82 received from 
Bridgman is premature, and it is altogether unfounded as 
regards the other items as thoy are matters of simple ad- 
ministration with which the superintendent had nothing 
to do, and which seem to have been acquiesced in by the 
trustees. We are therefore to confirm. 

Judgment confirmed. 
.46^0//, TaU Sr Abbglts, for Appellant. 

ArduinamnU Sc ArdittmhauU, iox liea^lxAQni. 



> 



111 



K'l 



II ' 



'■, i 



\ ■ Dec. 9, 1884. 
Coram DoRiON, C,J.,*MoNK, Ramsay, tJissikb & Orqss, JJ. 

SENEGAL, ^ - \\ 

(Deft, below), \ 

, Appellant ; s 

AND 

HATTON, 

{Plff. below), 

Respondent. 

Detention of Bonds— Condemnatim in event of failure to deliver.' 

Ul)on the fact! of the ease the Court was of opinion (confirming the judg- 
ment of^he Court below) that the defendant (apixjllant) was bound to 
return certain railway bonds which had beoa placed in his hands by 
the plaintiff 's assignor. 

ITc/d, reforming the judgment of the Court below (6 L. N. 220), that the 
condemnation against the defendant, in default of returning the bonds, 
should be to pay the actual value thereof, as established in evidence, 
and aot the par or nominal value. 

the appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, 
Montreal ( Toreanoe, J. ), maintaining the respondent's 



5-1 ~ 



^^^^•/"- 



f' 



' r^?M-"ii' 



-PPELLANT ; 



sre to deliver. 



4 

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. jjg 

.he Jurt ^rw"" ^ ™l!'* """ ""t^'io-t. plaintiff i„ 
1 /^L '^VV tnirty-fivo bonds issued bv tho Mnt,* 

twenty years after daio oH le and Iho r ' ^i'^'^'' 
the bonds toirethei. Ztl n ' f "*'*''*'' claimed 

The c,roam,lan.es of the e«.e are as f„ll„„aTl";'io,, 
per cent, ot all bonuses and subsidies wliiVK +i.« 

•w iSi™ r*™"'- ■«'"»•■• «■":, 






1884. 
Hon<!o«l 
Hiitton. 



.J 



Hi- 



IW 



' -i 



114 



MONTREAL LAW REPORm 



IP 



IMU. 
Hiitloii, 



hi' 



I '"^ 



l-i 



\, 



•i 



I'^i h. 



«ourHo of tho muiith ; that in 1876, in pnrauance of an 
arraugemunt between 8en(>cal and Hibbard, it wan agreed 
that Sen^cal Hhould retain the bondH for advances he had 
made to Hibbard ; that in <'a8«» he Bold tho bonds ho wjw 
to account to Hibbard, and set off the proceeds againut 
what was due to him by tho latter. Sential alleged that 
he had a right to retain the bondH so long as they were 
not sold, and ho added that they had not been sold. 
Subsequently he amended his plea, and alleged that 20 of 
the bonds had been 8old by Kim to tho Hon. Bradley 
• Barlow for 10 cents on the dollar, and that Hibbard won 
indt'bted to him in a sum exceeding any amount for which 
Senfical was bound to account, and that tho claim of Hib- 
bard was compensated. 

Tho court below held that Sen6cal was bound to return 
the bonds, or to pay their par value, and it was from this 
judgment that the present appeal was brought. 
Hon. A. Lacoste, Q.C., for the appellant : — - 

The appellant contends firstly, that Senfical had a right 
to compensate the 20 bonds sold to Barlow (for which he 
received in all $2,000) by the sum of $2,658, which is dud 
to Sen6cal by Hibbard. As to the other 16 boi/ds, it is 
contended that he has a right to retain them until they 
are sold. Secondly, if tho court should come to the con- 
clusion that Sen6cal is bound to give up the bonds, it is 
contended that Sen^cal, in default of delivery, is liable 
^only for their market value, which is only 10 cents oh the 
dollar, that' is, $8,600, against which he is entitl^ to set 
off his own claim of $2,668. Thirdly, if Senfecal's account 
be rejected, the condemnation against him ^rould not 
exceed $3,500, the actual value of the bonds. 

Strachan Belhune, Q.C., and C. A. Geoffrion, Q.C., for the 
respondent: — 

It is submitted, in the first place, that it is perfectly 
apparent that Senecal, after receiving the subsidy, had no 
right to retain the bonds. He obtained the bonds from 
Hibbard in consideration of making over to Hibbard his 
right to 25 per cent, of the subsidy, yet he, Sen6cal, sub- 



S#t^ »--• 'tT' ' 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. / ,,* 

;.r. which ho„«-„„ i„ co™p.,„i.i„: J^fc^"- 

and whi, h, raoroovor, aro pr««oribod, and othor portLj 
• .«n.,.t of j„dgm.„u .g,.i„„ Hil.bar.l, l,„„ght by^nZl 
.^»,qu,„tly to the tra,.,r„r by Hibbard to Hatton'o^S 
ran«f..r» «„ „„/. „nyt, „oi bearing any date koZvIJ 
. .h^ appolla;.. has failed to prove thealC.greeme«tbv 
wh„h he ela,™» t„ h„., . ^ ^^ ^^ hoIdlhebondZ" J 
h„mdebtedno.,„fHibb.rdtohim„ntil he shouU." 
U^om and aocouat for the proceed,. Senfcal w.^ in brf 
f« h m ooncealmg the fact that he had «,ld the tonT 

H^al .f Sental .bta.,«d tfce »«baidy he was to retnmTh^ • 
bond, or ,f he d„po«,d of the bends Hibbard waarhave " 
the subsidy ; but the appellant h«, not only coll" M the 
.«b.,dy but ha. retained the bonds. Asto'tZ"X/tf " 

were r .'."'"'T '^ '"'*» '^'^'""^ «''»wing thatthey 
we« worth much more than ton cents. Some were sold 

rt^ltXr "riamenr •:?"'^"" ' 
appollant to ^y t^ ^r^S^r^LT'ZZ tt -> 
opt.c».to, return the bonds, and if the bonds are worth 
on y tenjents as he pretends, so much the beteTfor ht. 
becaus^e can buy them at that rate and satisfy tht iud"' 
meBUy iumding back the Iwuds. . ^ ^ «*« J»dg- 

DOBION. J. :— 

The action i^by^the respondent, plaintiff in the court 
below, to recover from the present appellant Sen6cal Sfi 
bonds ome Montreal. Chambly and Sorel eZ^^^^^. 

Ke tcTt'hisLt' 1 ^''''' ^'"^- '^^^ ^-"« wS 
t\l . *^*'''° -^ somewhat complicated. Sen6- 

ci\ IS ,n possession of these 85 bonds, in consideration ff 
a transfer from him to Hibbard of hiL riahtlTZZ^V 
auhsid, which the railway was e^Z'^l^ Trail 



IM4 
S«n((ni»| 
Ifnttoiii 



4j 




m 1 



■? 



a^ff^rst^^gfS^ 



116 



mAi*trbal law kEn>ltT8. 



'*• in-oviiK'ial governnu'iiL 8on«cal, howovor, rucoived tl 



.V 
IliiKun. 



-J'-, 






'i / 

.11 




Nubsidy from th«* f^ovornmoiit. It would appt^ar from 
I'artM that Ilihhard'H <^laim/Would riitluir b« for tho Nul>N4d^ 
than for lliu bondH. Hov/ovor, hi> Huh rhoNoii to omk for 
thu hoiidit, and .when /ilibbard'H aNNigiu^o claiinM the 
bondN, Son^ral douM not/ pretond tbat he in not ontnlod to 
thorn, btit Rlfyn that h/ haN Hold Homo of thom, onid that 
thoy wi-rc worth only ten conts on tho dfeUar. /riibbani. 
tranHforrcd his riglun to Ilatton, tho prcsont roHpondunt, 
who Miod to ro(o\'jor tliy bondHor thoir par vamo. Son^cal 
pleaded that ho had t>hiimH iigainHt }Iibbar<jjwhioh ho waH 
entitled to con^ponNato; further, that he/ had Hold tho 
bonds. Tho epiirt bolow Hot aside all th|6 pleas, holding 
that tho <;lai^ns against Hibbard wonv' proscribed, and 
ordered Sen6cal within lA days to dolivor over the 3r> 
bonds or pjiy the foi;o value. Wo thiiilc the court below 
erred in that part of tho judgment. /Sen6cal was bound 
to deliver the bonds, but he *waH not bound as the alter- 
native to pay tho nominal value. /What he was bound to 
do was to pay the market v»alue/at the "time the. boiids 
wert/a<!quired by him. This i» the doctrine of^^dpf the 
autnors who have written upoiyTailure to fulfil obligalipiis. 
court reforms the judgmout, and d<H; lares that Sen6<al 
deliver the bonds witmn a mouth, and in default 
pay 25 cents on the par vame, eqiial to $8,750. It is provec 
that some of tho bonds woto sold at 10 cents on the dollar, 
and it is evident that thdr value at most was 25 cents. The 
judgment will bo reformed accordingly. Sen6cal will be 
ordered to give up ther bonds within a month, and in de- 
fault of doing so, ho /will have to pay $8,t50, with interest, 
and tho costs of tho^court below ; costs iu. appeal against 
the respondent. As the court below reserved to Senteal 
his recourse foy me pretended claims against Hibbard, tlie 
judgment here/will not interfere with^ that part of the 
judgment be^w. 

Ramsay. 
; Two actions were instituted in the colurt below, one by 
the respondent Hatton against Sen6cal the appellant, the 
otheryoy SenC'cal against the responde^it Hibbard. The 



iintio 

jOCt I 

ai>p««l 

hard 

Chan 

real, ] 

t!a<!h, 

It I 

„l7th ( 

ubove 

the nc 

'.Jo con 

<j^)Koquei 

fv. t'^thcBe c 

/ <it'('d, I 

t^rms ; 

"IflHtiitiir 
KiuiJl doll 

full of 111 

i'« t-ontui 
'littu the 

On tl 

letter a< 

OompaB 

all that 

It set 

kSen6cal 

Hurteau 

Uailway 

obtained 

the nth 

nothing 

contract, 

to the ra 

what ext 

fectly ag: 

hands. 



coiyed t| 
^r from cn«> 
ho HuhMid^ 
tu UMK for 
;laiiiM the 
imtixltMl to 
that 
Hibbanl, 

Npoiiduiit, 
11. S««if'!ciil 
ich ho wiiH 
I Hold th« 
\H, holding 
ribtid, and 
iror the 3;"> 
•urt below 
^HR bound 

the altor- 
B bound to 
the. bonds 
the 
pus. 
lat Sen6<-al 
in default 
t is provec 
the dollar, 
cents. The 
jal will be 
ind in de- 
th interest, 
!al against 
to Senfcoal 
ibbard, tlie 
art of the 



>w, one by 
»ellant, the 
)ard. The 



o 



r. WUBT 0? QUKKN-H BKNCH. „„ 

117 

antlon. were united b^uau-e of the .onnexity of the «ub. 
J-t matte, on the motion of Sen6<.al. In botVaottiHThJ 
iM)p.^IIant wa« unsmv.waful. """" ^'*" 

ard fir ho rooovery of 85 dobenturuH of the Montr 1 
<hambly«,vl Sorel Itailway (lompai^r now tlTu ' 
nal Portfan.! and Boston iLilway' ^^.^^'o ^0 
each, and the.r .ou|K>n« with interent at 6 por ent 

It soemti that Sen^Tal hiul ri.,».» j 

I. 'Jo .oiistriirt th.. railway in auo«lioi. Him i , """7' 

i^quenti, had a..„trai;. toS^ie^ ;:?';:^: It 

I'" tl T-l ^ "'" ^*'"^*''' " '"''•■"^P* »" *^" following 

-"• •«..'iarH ....... ..;;;;;!•: s^..£ %"; ' ; 7>'/'':-. <-f <- 1.-.. 

•""of my claim .wiftmt tl.., M.Zl r ,^.' i^' '' '" '" l'">'"»'»t in 
'l"to the 17th <ltty o/Oct, lS?r ^^ ^™»'*-«". »»""ring 

(Signed) L A. SENEGAL. 

It seems subsequently to this (22nd November 1877) 

H^5HE :-" ^^^-S 

l^anda. Hibbard says that he did u«^ give back the 



) I. 



llntlnn. 






» ' ^ 



T^f 



* 
lUtiiin. 



I^i' 



.^ 



/ 



*■ V 



118 



MONTH 






p»p«ni 



' . »- 



nH.'»«l|)t una tbf* l«itt«r to S«m6i.*l, but th«t thoi^ 
WMM in (ommoii and thttt ho ooamtntnd to hiit (fitttiiig thu 
(Jovyramout ■ubildy; furthorinoro, in m luttnr dit«d th« 
Il»th OrtoWr, 1877, nignod by llibbunl mid nd<lri«HN<ul to 
S»Mi^» III, wo liad ihiM dotilM>ruio Htutomfat : " I Jt>turaud 
you-tho rocoipt oftho lAth May uad tho or-dor of ^h« UHh 
May, 1876." It !■, thorolbru, uaa»H»>«nHry to higgle ovor 
tho uiaia I'luiit. Now, whj^t in Uie proaumption of thoHo 
iadiHputabl^ fw^tn? 1 thiiik«li<arly that H«a6.!al had at 
oao tiaio or aaothor tht^ right to doal ioth with ko/25 
pur coat, of tho mibwidy tiad with tho thirty-Hvo dib«'a- 
turoM, aad ultor Hom»< hi^Hitatioa ho adntitH that ho did doal 
with both. It iH tlViually ovidoat, I think, that he had to 
a<!t!ount for ono or othi^r, and thiH is precisoly the protoa- 
tion of the action, and plaiatifF «laim8 the dt^beatures or 
their Hue valuo. Th«i Hulmtaatial aaawer to thiH iH : I 
have Bold or pltKlgo*! th«( debunturuH and I cannot give you 
them, and a« n-gardn their valm;^ thiH is ono of many trans- 
a<;tionH, the balaa«o of whiofi in largely in my favour, 
more than tho valuo of tho thirty-flve debenturoB which 
are only worth $2,000. I uai aot Hure that thiH defence !« 
aot domurrablo ; but be this aH it may that question dooH 
urise here. Sen6cal made a cross demand and thd two 
suits were united, and tho whole matter disposed oif by 
one judgment by which the action of Sen6cal v. Hib- 
baril was dismissed with costs, and a reservation of certai|ii 
rights to {Sen«Hal, and the a«tioii of Hutton v. 8on6cal was 
maintained in its entirety. Thorfis/wsi/tw is as follows :— 

" Considering that plaintiff' hath proved that the said 
Ashley Hibbard transferred to him his claim in principal 
and interest on ^aid bonds by transfer sous seing priv4, 
dated 26 January, 1882, then duly signified to defendant 
.L. A. Sen6cal, doth condemn the said defendant L. A. Se- 
n6cal to deliver over to the said plaintiff within 16 days 
from this 'date the said 86 bonds with, all interest cou- 
pons, as delivered to the said defendant, and on his 
default of so doing within the said delay, the Court doth 
condemn defendant to pay and satisfy to the plaintiff the 
sum of 186,000, with interest thereon from the 2nd Jau- 



;'W- 



. ^ 






''' If 



■T^^f 



iN:- 



''Slt^^iriTW.'iirflRii 



••I 



CX)UBT Of (|UIKJf% w jiifT t 



,,S4. 



wry 1874. d.t« of th« iwiaUd.. togoth^t with intt-l 
on th« .mount ot «•.!, coupon from th« d.t« whou tho 

.urn of 11.050 b«i„g th« «ggr«gat»«m<m«t of 8r. .outKin. 

.. .a. h a,ul .,v.,ry yo.r r,«p«ctiv«ly. oommom i„g on th« 
.^^yy ^of Jul, .HH uutU p.^^^ 

Th., portion of th« judgment whi.^h di«mi.««H «pp«|. 

rrin "• r**'**"" ^« »« »« »>« »»«'f««tly w«ll fouiulud. 
Th« action H«tH up ,n gxuiU- m,..u.uro ,» tr.uw,u tion which 
.« not prov.Hl.>nd which. I may a.ld. H««m«,to mo to b, 
«n .m,K>«.,bl« on«. Th. ovid„n. « v.ry in. onclu.i vdy refer, 
to other 8um« of money which evidently were not the^ 

iTltT'Z f: ***" "' ^"»^""^«r«-- . We .n, therefonT 
eft n f«c. of the simple .qnention of the equivalent fo 

h OouTf .r; '''"' ^''*>"»^-- It -™Mo mo that 

- ^d^Ut *h T. T ""'""^'y dotormined thin question. 

and that the r,ght of ro«,>ondent on^ tflTown nhowing ii ' 

t6 have 86 debenturen or their value'Ltheit greatest vSlu' 

-whi<,h seisms to me to be Us cents in the dollar. This 

Monk, J. :— 

The Court has hod somt, diffi,;ulty in deft^mining what ' ' 
order should be made as to the ciupouH. It ha« come^rthe 
conclusion to allow interest on the sum fixed as the value 

Ow»88° J l! *"*''™*' representing the coupons. 

I o^oncur in the view which has been taken of this 

ca«e by the leart.ed judges wh<, have just spoken ; but as 

to the value of the bonds, I would be in favor of allowing 

« higher value, in default of their surrender. I would 
do «o on th pri^,,ipi^ ^^^j g^^^^^j ^^ ^^^^ ^^ 

duce the bonds or give the highest price they were shown 

wo^^ • r^ ^ '^^^ ^^''^ ^ ««"»« «^id«»ce that 

would support a valuation of 76 cents. Ido not how- 

L'S""*!' f:^""^J^^' '^ ^ ^"^^^^^ the principle of the 
judjpnent of thia Oourt. 



lUuiMi. ; 



.1 



1, 






:;^ 




t^ 



<*^ 



<! 1 






P''^^j 






J884 
8cn(''oul 

IflkttUII. 



«i- 



,.!^ 



¥ 



K - 



1 i -V 



^^» 



i" 



120 



■ , ■ ■•■ "t 

MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



^P* 



The lollowing \h the text of the judgment :— 

•' The Court, etc . -* ^ • 

" Cousidering that the evidence of record establishes 
that the appellant, Louis A. Sen6cal, received from Ashley 
Ilibbard, one of the respondents, the 85 bonds of the 
Montreal, Chambly and Sorel Railway^ Company at the 
par value of $1,000 each, bearing the numbers (0464,0466, 
etc., to 0488) dated 2nd January, 18*74» and the coupons 
attached to said bonds at six per cent per annum from 
their date ; ' . 

" Considering that it is proved by the admissions of the 
appellant contained in his plea and amended plea, and 
by other evidence in the cause, that the said appellant is 
bound to return the said bonds oTr to account for the same 
to the said Ashley Hibbard or |ii8 assigns ; 

"And cortsidering thjt the said Ashley Hibbard has 
transferred to the said John CafiiirHattenhia^laim in 
principal and interest on said bonds by a sous ieing jffwi 
transfer of the 2tth January^ 1882, duly signified to the 
said appellant ; 

" Considering that the said appellant has failed to 
l)rovtt the allegations of his pleas^ and that he is bound 
hy law to return to the respondent Hatton as cessionnaire 
of the said Ashley Hibbard the said 36 bonds, and in 
default of doing so, to pay the value thereof ; 

" And considering that it is proved in the cause that 
the said bonds were at the time the appellant got the 
same, of the value of 25 per cent, of the face or nominal 
value of the said bonds ; 

" And considering that there is error in the judgment 
rendered by the Superior Court at^Montreal on the 9th 
day of July, 1883, in condemning the said appellant to 
r«»turn the said boiids and in default^ do so to pay the 
par value thereof; ■'■- : --.Pfm: ' ' ' "■^i ' . 

" This Court doth reform the said jud^ent and doth 
condemn the said appellant to return to the said John 
Cassie H^ttoh, within 30 days from the service upon him 
of a copy of this judgmenl, the 36 bonds bearing the 
numbers 0454, |0466, 0466, etc.,] and 04^88, and lOl coupons 



OOUBT OE ^UtaiN-S BENCH. 



\ 



VXi 



m 



wh.oft^^«« attecked to the same, and in default of re- 
turmng the said ^36 bonds and coupons to the said Jo^n 
OMsie Ha ton within the said delay, doth condemn the 

^m of $8,760. with interest on this last sum fVom the 

1 ?„.th ^''^''^l*' of thesaid bonds until paid! 
and further condemns the sai^ appellant to pay to the 
said John Cassie Hatton the costs incurred in the Court 

demn the said John Cassie Hatton to pay to the said 
^t L. A. Sen^cal the costs' incun.S 4 ^e^p;:::^ 

^ " And this Court adjudging on the merits fff the action 
^m instituted by the said appellant L^AJen^cS^ 
against the said respondent Ashley Hibbard • ^ 

"Considering that the said appellant hath feflled4^^. 
tabhsh that he was entitled to the eonalusionfofh^^^ 
daration against thesaid Ashley Hibbard, doth confim ' 
hhejudgment rendered by the Court beiow. and S 
Usmiss the said uction bf the said Louis A. Sek J with 
costs agamst him. both in- the Court below and on the 
presen appeal, reserving, however, to the said LoL A ^ 
Senecal any recourse which he may have or prete^" 
against s«d Ashley Hibbard as defendant in the Two 
\rZ I"- '''' '"^ *^^ Superior Court at Mont e^l ^ 

|o ntl of the Superior Court, Richelieu, ThJuerchal 
\^^of Cana^ ^^Tke Montreal, PorOand ^ BosUmZl 
|«>»»W. Mleyimard and L. A. Sen^cJ:' 

r^ , VyH ; Judgment reibrmed. 

Hatton 4- Nicolls, attorneys fov ihe respondent . . • 

ifc6ert«m./to6Aie 4. i^«tf, attorneys for Hibbard.- 

: - r> 



1884. 
8en<c«l 
Hatton. 



■^ 







r^ 4 






i 

<i 1 






122 



MONTBEAL LAW BEFORTS. 



January 28, 1885^ 




Coram DoMON, C.J., Ramsay; J., Tessieb J., Cross, J., 

Baby, J. 

THE NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE FIRE & 
LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

^^^ * {Defendant in Court below), 

, , ' ' / Appellant; 

.. ■ AND ■;.. '" 

-^ LAMBE ES-QUALIT*, /I 

■ , {Plaintiff' in Court below), 

r 'Respondent. 

[and EIGHT OTHER OASES.] 

Powers of the Provincial Legislatures — 46 Vict, {Q.), ch. 22— 
Direct and Indirect TaxatUm—B. N. A. Ad, IBBt, sect. 92, 
S.8. 2, 16 — Matters of a merely local or private nature in 
the Province. '. . 

By tlie Act 45 Vict (Q.) ch. 22, "to provide for the exigencies of the 
" public (i^ice " of the Provipce of Quebec, a tax was imposed on 
evety biink^tnBurance company, and other commercial corporation 
doiqg bnsiness^n the Province. The tax was imposed in proportion to 
the paid-up capital of the banks, together with a tax on each office, etc. 
Some0f the corporations interested in the cases here determinedhave 
their principal offit^ out of the Province, and some were incorporated 
in England or in the United States. Jn some^cases the stock is hekl 
chiefly by persons not resident in the Province of Quebec. 

Hhld:— By the majority\ of the Court (Kamsay, Thbsisb, Ba^y, J J.), con- 
firming the judgment of the Superior Court, Ml L. R, 1 S. C! 32 :— 

1. That the taxes imposed on corporations by the Act in question an 
personal and direct taxes within the Provixioe, and such as are 
authorized by sect. 92,siib-8ect 2 of tl)gB. N. A. Act, 1867. A oorpon- 

' tion doing business in theyProvince is subject to taxation under Sect 

02, sub- sect. 2, though all vbs shareholders are domiciledl out of the 
Province. 

2. That even assuming that the tax^s'in question should be considered i» 
not falling within the denomin^on of direct taxes, the local legii- 
latVure had power to impose the Siune, inasmuch as they were mutten 
of a merely local or private nature in the Province, within the mean- 
•ing of the B. N. A- Act, ^Bct 92, sub. se^ 16. 

By Do^ON, C J., and Ciiosd, J. :— That the ttb^ in question are indirect 
taxes, and are liot authoriEed by sub. sect 1^ of Sect 92 of the B. N. A 
Act, 1867. 






"TT*^^-^ 






"!» 



1 



.;OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



128 






The appeal was from a/udgmeut of the Superior Court, im. 
Montreal. W. J., reported in M. L. R., 1 S. C. 82. Eiirh Th- n. b. * m 
other^appealsdUn which the same questions Ir^ In-''"' *<^-'^ 
rolved wete ar^ed at the same time, and the judgment ^^^ 
app hedio ^ Inme^^es. The questions at is^sue are fully 
disclosed m the opinlbns of the learned Judi^s 

License Inspector La^bff; -ct , v i,u« 

iaytemmc, Q. C^ forUhfe Bank^f Toronto- Kerr O C • 

forthe N^h BriW and Mercantile Fire &S'lL^: 
hmceCo.and for the Export Lumber Co. ; laU, Q G for 
UeOnter^Banl^Molsons Bank, and M;rcha;^^f 
\marm Q. C for the Canadian Bank of Commerce • 
hrchtbald for the Williams Manufacturing Co. The «,^! 

ment WM commenced on the 21st Nov. 1884, and was ' 
[continued on the 22nd, 24th and 25lh Noyemb^r, 1884 

DoRioN, 0. J. (dissenting):— 

*h!^?r'^T^'^'''^"'*"^*^*^^«^'^^«^totest > 

he legality of taxes imposed by an Act passed by the 
Le^slaturQ of the Province of Quebec, in" the 45th year . 
of Her Majestv's reign, under ch. 22, and entitled "4„ 

The first section of this Act whi^ 
[^^ed^hy^jithese several actions, is in the following ^ 

1. "in order 4o provide forthe exigencies of the public V 

;p6e of this Province, every Bank carrying on the 
business of Banking in this Province^ every Insurance 
Company accepting risks and transacting the business 
of insurance m this Province, every incorporated cofn- 
my carrying on any labor, trade or business in this- 
Province, eyeiy incorporated Loan Company making 
loans m this Province, every incorporated Navigation 

Ik, Thfr WiUiaaw Manufacturing Co. & Umhe- The OirH-mZ-! 



I 



-41— 



^. 





ilM.Oo. 

A 

Lambe. 



^ 124 

"•"' " Company ranning^ a regular line of steamers, steam- 
^KreAUf**' " ^^^^ o' other vessels in the waters of this Province ; 
" every Telegraph Company worl?ing a telegraph lint^ or 
" part of a telegraph line in this Province ; every Tele- 
" phone Company working a telephone line in this Pro- 
" vince ; every City Passenger Railway or Tramway 
". Company working a line of railWy or tramway in this 
" Province, shall- anniially pay Ahe several taxes men- 
" tion^dand specified in section /three of this Act, .which 
" taxes are hereby imf>osed appn each of such commer- 
•^cial corporations respectively 



lit 










U / 



'y-i 



Section 3 says, the annual t^axeB imposed upon and pay- 
• able by the commercial coQ)orf^ions mentioned in section 
1 shall be, on Banks * * # ,|l,000. when the paid-up 
capital is from $500,000 to $1,000,000, and an additional 
'sum of $200 for each million or fraction^ of a million 
dollars of the paid-up, capital from olie million to three 
million dollars, and a .further additional sum of $100 for 
each million or fraction of a million dollars of the paid-up 
^cipital over three million dollstrs, and an additioiml tax 
of $100 upon each office in the cities of Montreal and 
Quebec, and $20 for each office in any other place. 
^ By the subsequent provisions of this Act, these taxes 
are payable annually, and the recovery can be made on 
b^alf of Her Majesty, and by section 10 these taxes are 
to form part-of the consolidated revenue of the Province. 
Of the nine cases under consideration, which, have all j 
- been instituted by the Revenue Inspector for the District I 
of Montreal, five are against Banks, and the others against 
an Insurance Company, a Manufacturing pom^any, a 
Railway and Navigation Cofnpany, and the nintliJigwhst 
a Navigation Company. Of these, six were incorporated 
either by {the Dominion Parliament or before the passing 
of the British *North America Act, 18j67 ; one/was i^cor-' 
po^ated in England, and two in the IJnit^ States. 
Three have their principal offices in the Province 
Quebec, and the others have their principal offices oat I 
of the Province, but they are all dping business in the! 
Province of Quebec. The stock ia three of the com- 

^ ^ ■ • • - . ; •■ ■ 






% 



'4 



,:■:/-. 



^f' 



! 



dOURT^F QUEEN'S BENCH. 



1211 



nd m^ the others by parties a portion of whom reside in tm N- b. * m. 

h/^f T^r ^?f^ ^»f«« th«-actiou8 ha^een dismissed 
by Mr. Jus ice KamviUe, and in the fouhthers they have 
l^u maintained by Mr. JusCice Jett6 and M, LtiL 

These nine cWs form part.of a larger number of cases 



Ina. Co. 

. * 

LalDbe. 



J. , •" — * — ->"■ " ^^vstT uumoer oi case 
now pending against other corporations for the recoveru4 
ofsimilartaies ftn*1 !.«..« u„.. . , I ^^^'QWl 



e • 1 , '^ — '"•i'uianouH lor ine recovert 

ofsimil.r^taxe8.and have.been represented at the heS 
lliT.y'fr "^ the different classes intp which the 
Whole of the cases may be divided according to the spe- 
ml circumstances of each case. 

_ I may at once say that I do not find that these special 
circumstances arc sUch as to take any of the cases out of 
the rule which 1 1 Jifnk is applicable to all'of thenr 

I Jil'n*'^^'^"^'^**'' °"^y ^'*^«*^"' to-be decided, as 
stated m the admission.given in several of these cases is 
whether or not the Provincial legislature had autC y 

has ruled in the five Bank cases, that the pre^^ta. waJ 
not a direct tax within the meaning of the British mZ ' 

\t:Stf '^^"^^"^^ P-vinciafLegislarfhilto 
nthorlty to impose such a tax. apd as a consequence he 
I has dismissedlhe five actions. ; 

I .rl'' i!;"'*77«**6 »^d Mr. Justice Mathieu. rejecting the 

thority of American decisions, as inapplicable t!the 

presenii ^ases. inasmtfch as the words " direct taxes" in the 

America,n constitution are controlled and limited in their 

application by the obligation imposed upon Conl^'to 

hportionsuch;^«^,^«^.. i, proportion to t^Xn^^ 

Hj^lyin^ principally on the opinions expressed by 
P^ch writers.W political ecpndtoy. have ^me to an 
We conclusion and declafed that the legislature;^ ^ ' 

KSrit ^ "^^ — ^"d nn tod -wi t hin t he li iui ls o f 



;*'-. 







126 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



1888. 



InK. Co. 
Lambe 



i;. 



-'"!'' "y 



V,*- 



i ; 



lb'' 



■ '■• 



It- ' f 



N6w,-without rejecting altogether the assistance whioh 
''^f^AUt^ma/y be derived from a. careful examination of the dcni- 
sions rendered on this question of 'direct taxation by the 
etninent jurists who, sitting ip the Supreme Court of the 
United States, have had to give an interpretation to 
those words, as found, in the Constitution of their cpun- 
try, nor the valuable opinions expr<>ssed hy. political 
^onomists as to the meaning of those words,' I do not- 
think that either of those standards is a satisfactory one 
in the present cases. It cannot be denied that the- words 
" direct taxes," in the Constitution of the United, States, 
cannot apply to some of the taxes which are elsewhere 
considered as direct tales, and that they wete therefore 
used in a limited sense in the Cobstitution of the United 
States. '. • . :• ' 

^ > Chief Justice Chase, in the case of Veazie ^ank v. Fenno 

(8 Wallace, 583,) after a careful, review of the judicial 
decisions and of .the opinibns of jurists and others, came 
to the following conclusions : — V 

" It may be rightly affirmed, thetefore, that in the prac- 
" tical construction of the ^Constitution by Qongress, 
" direct taxes have been limited to taxes on land and 
" appurtenarices, and tkxes on polls or capitation taxes." 

And the satoe leariied judge fu-rther says : — 
^ "It may be safel^assumed, th(^fore, as the unanimous 
" judgment of theiCourt, that a tax on carriages is not a 
" direct tax. And/ it may further be taken as established 
" upon the testimony of Paterson, that .the words ' direct 
" taxes,' as used in the Constitution, compr^ended only 
"capitation taxes and taxes on land, and perhaps taxes 
"on personal property ty g^eneral 'valuation and^ssess- 
" ment of the various" descriptions possessed within the 
"several States." (8 "V^allace, p. 646.)- , 
Judge Cboley, on Tazfttion, p. 5, note 8, also says :— 
"The tehn 'direct taxation ' is employed in a peculiar 
"sense in the Constitution, in the provision requiring j 
" such taxes to be apportioned according to representa- 
" tion, and they are, perhaps, limited \o capitatimi and] 
" land taxes ; " and Kent, vol. 1, p. 255, says : " Tift Con- 



\ 



%i^ 




COURT OP QUEENS BENCH. 



■S': 



w 



titution contemplated, no taxes as direct taxe. but «« 

am?nJ i' w'' T^' ^^''^ '' ^ ^«'^* ^^^""ity of opinion ^^^*<^^ 

ITwhari '"? ^'"*r °" P°^'*'^'»> economy. noHily ^^ ' 
a8 to what taxes are to bo cousid^.n.d as direct axes but 

^TorTh 'r^*' !r'"'*^^" ^^•^■^•^* -Pstitut;" <L>ec^' tax ' ^^ . 
Mor m, Repertoire, vo. Contributions Publiqui-s sec 1 

Imroauctton de plusieurs objets de camrnere et rZLl ' 
jn^um, ^n^i. dont /. produil ardinairemerU avaZT^e 

mentpayiparleccm&mtnateurr ' ' 5^** . ;.- 

" D'apr^s cette il6finition les droits d'enregistfrement ' 

jtha drmts d'enregistrement include and are cWeTy com 

whether by mhentance or otherwise) 'i ne devraient pal 

" a^tt ^' i'fZr ^.'" """"^^ indirecte; c4r 
dant cm s esthabUu6 a les ranger dam cette classed 

, Oestaussii cette classe qiliippartiennent/les droits 

•'st tir ". '?*^ '""'^ '^^^ «- ^- cartes" 'ow 
sttr le sel, snr aes boissons, etc." . •■ '' 

|inf^'''''^,r°'"': '■'■'"'''"•'■ P- »", hasthefolW. 

'roSri^i;; Onpeutmnger sous deux cheft pHnci- 

paui les differents mimiiTes qa-on omploie poor atwi. 

demaude directement one portion dn revenu anWn.^- 
taen on lenr fait payer nne somme qnelconque snr ce^ 

cest lobjet de ce que To, noafae en France les aw, 
tnbutions indirectes .» "ance les con- 

This writer places among the direct taxes, "lacoMri ' 



It'- 



\ 






^tc, and ho gays; " TopteB 



x!eg- 






. %. 



4 



hi 



128 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS, 



Tha N. n. k 
Pirn i ill 



1^1 



r 

it 




.■'■5''' 


' 'z 




111 
'If 



" manidres de lever leg contribntions les rangent dans la 
f- " clasHo des contributions indirectes, parce que la demands 
" n'en «>8t paNfaitt^ k pttrHonno direotement, iUaiH au pro- 
" duit, i\ la marchaiidiNe frapp^e de l'imp6t," and in a 
noto, he adds : " Et non parcequ'olles atteig^ent indirec- 
"**tement le contribuable ; mrsi elles tiraient leur dinomina- 
•' lion da cette demiihre drronstance, it faudraU donner le m4m 
^* nom.d des contributions tres directes, comme par exemphii 
" l^mpdt des patentes qui tombe en partie indirectemont Hur 
" le conRommateur des produits dont s'occupe lapatente." 
"" " La pateuto, says de Gerando, Droit Adminjstratif; 
vol. 4, p. 42, "conftre le droit d'exercer librement' une 
" brauche d'industrie." (Lot des 2-11 mars 1T»1.) 

At p. 129, the same writer says: "La licence a quel- 
" tju'analogie avec la patente, • elle s'applique k la pro- 
" fession exerc6e. " - 

" Elle correspond k la dfeclaratiou de celui qui I'exerce; 
" elle la constate. ' 

"La declaration a pour objet de faire connaitre k Tadini- 
" nistration ceux qui exercent une profe^ssion ppfeciale- 
" jnent Boumise k la surveillance. / / 

" Elle est exig§p des d^l^itants de Ibo^sons, des mta- 
" chands en gros, des brasseurs, distillate^urs ^tbouilleurs j 
" de profession. " , ' 

This writer places the droit f de patentes among the contri- 
butions directes and the droits de licences among the contri- 
tions indirectes. (pp. 6 and 42 and pp. 100 and 129.) 

Leroy-Bfeaulieu, Trait6 de la Science des Finances, vol. 
1, p. 214, after showing that the definition of direct and 
indirect taxes is not ihe same in every country, ^yg : 

" Par Vimpdt direct le l^gislateur se propose d'atteindre 
" imm6diatement du priemier bond et proportionnellement] 
" k sa fortune ou k ses revenus, le v6ritable contribuable;] 
" 11 supprime tout interm6diaire entre lui et le fisc, et il 
" cherche une proportionality rigoureuse de I'impdt a la 
" fortune ou aux facult6s. a^ 

" Pat Vimpdt indir&ct le iS^slatenr ne vi8e|>a8 imm6dia-| 
"tement le Veritable contribuable et ne cherche pas a Inij 
"Jmposer une charge strictemei^t proportionnelleJtBegj 



\ 







OOURT OF i(J|teN'8 BENCH 



"^'^i^i:^d:^^ 



129 



lia- . IMA. 






■ l«.rtic..li,.rH, „„ cont..,it«Mny^,„ ' • "*""" "''" ™" 

t« given by sir lul il """"'""'«'" ^'1 "»« «»'■ / 

'•""PBrson, in the Irnifi r^' ** ^°"'''''<'«d from 

hnd indirect when itXT^ T '^"''°'''' "" "^m". 
tindividnds pa7fo" m,'rtlt '*""" **""" '"' ""king J 
kroi»„ertS/;»;j^^^*°««« eertdn article, or t^ 

'^^^:::!t!!;i:::;i~rrw».^n.^ 

Vol. l q. r ^ "^ "ub-sect: JT oTsect: 92, of the 



Itii Co. 
Lniiibe. 



m 






3 




V 



T 



-^m^s^ 



•S^Sj- 



180 



MONTREAL LAW ltRIX)Rm 



IMA. 



IK . 









liiK. Co. 
Lniiibe 



T J 



Coiif«!d<>ration Act, would iit Hnglaiul hf coiiHidoml u 
'^VireA j-ff.f ■ t^h'' <>ul-r<>iu«' ol'ttii iiuUrcct tax, while in Franco it niijjfht 
bo <(>nHidcn>d aH a patent tax, which iH a direct tux, or a 
lic(mMo tax, which In un indin^ct tax. 
^' Mill, in the work already cited, ch. It, § 1, says: — 

" Bt>Hid«'H dir<>ct taxuH on income, and taxcH on «on- 
^ ' "'Muniption, the financial HyHtemH of nioHt j-ountrjes com- 
" priHo a variety of miH«ellaneoU8 impoHbi not ntrictly 
-'■ " included in 4'ither clas*." 

. I do not wish to discUHB hor»* the comparative ^oritn 

of llu'se definilionH and elaHHirications. My only ol)^j<'ct 
in maktng the ahove citations in to show tBSit the dxprofi- 
sions " direct " and " indirect taxet," in th<»ir legislative 
application, are purely conventional terms, having a dif- 
fen'nt moaning acuiording to the ililFei'ont legislation of 
each country in which they ard! tised, and that as legal 
' terms they have no common or scientific basis. 

This could hafdly be otherwise, sin<!0 in every country 
new tares or now Modes of taxation, unknown in other 
countries, are constantly brought into operation, and old 
or effete taxes are revived under new name^ and a now 
classification, so that it is almost impossiblQ for foreign 
writers to follow the changes. 

The o\di' aides or gabelles which existed in BVance before | 
the Revolution, and were abolished by the AssemhUe Con' 
stituante, became under the First, Empire the "rfroj/il 
riuni$." The " droits r^unis" disappeared with the Empire;] 
'the taxes, however, were retained at the Restoration, 
under the less obnoxious name q[ mntributumi indirectes. 

In England, some of the stamp duties, and even some 
of the taxes formorfy known as assessed taxes, have by 
recent statutes been declared to be excise duties. 

Stephen, Commentaries, vol. 2, p. SBt, speaking of excise, 
says that, in England, '• its advantages, indeed, are such 
•' that under recent Acyts' of Parliament many imposts 
" have been classed (probably for greater convenience in 
" collection) under this head of duties, which are not 
" properly in the nature of .excise.- Such is the case with 
"regard to licendes, which the law requires to be anna 



\^ 



COURT OF QURftN^ RRNCH. , -j- 

"ally taken oat by tho«o who manufactur. or doal'lr, 
-r a.„ articles, Of who fbIIo>^ ...tuin cmploym. n « ' 
Th.H ,H vory much tho «.»„. huiguugo uL^hy M rlin 
«» nffurds tho droit, .Fenr.^ntrrJnt, wh.ui, iavH t ^^^ 

.ha,.g. au. b. don,. V usage or .u^tom, «urely ^C 
eH.«rt,.d by oxpreBs h,gi«iation; « uy it can bo 

.iRi.H It, pp. 597 J the following passage of a brief nr«r 

'TK«..«-i »»*^ meaning ^o the respective terms 

,. . . "" '*'*'*'^ oe as much at a loss to ixnA 

Lm"f„'!l."'u tT" °' ''"™ ^»* ^- -f""" (8 Wall.., 
but without satisfactory resultH TK ''^*^^''®""y «aae, 

■Justi, ,. Chase are as applicable to the British IST A J^ • 
iintish North America Act. V(^ mnRt fiitd uxhau^t 



■^ t 



W 



imt. 

TlMjN,!! AM. 
III*. (i>. 
liMiuba. 



■ si. ' 



"^ y 




lii 






132 



^ MONTREAI, T,AW KEPORm 



■ • "BS 



14A. 




/• 



tho or«liiiury ruli'k of ii|h>ri>i9^tutioii Mj^iplinihh' to ntatato 
''I'l^l^Jr*' '"w, and homIc in t|ho Aflt itiiHr and iii ihti dimToiit provi- 
UwU) **'**"** rrliitiiipf to li,hi» |>i»w/r of tnintion what manning, 
th<> Iia|H>iial ParlmvrlViti Hun otttt«ht'<l to thowo w«>rdit. 
Wt'iiiUNt iiIno rt'fcr Io tflouth<<rartN |»ii«Nt«d by rarliaiii«>itt 
on Uu" Mun»> or lojjf^iito Huhj«'«tM, to find how wiuiilar tuiiN 
havolxM-n jlanMillod, ftn<l finally wo muMt rouHi'diT whnt 
«'fl«'c't the tl»<»i8ionN ulr»'u<ly rcndcrott by our hi^hcNt «'ourtt» 
iin«l l>y tho I^nlM of tho Privy Connril on tho Mtntral 
quoKtiouN of tiixiition, whit-h hav«' come boforo th<>in, havi> 
t>n th*' jMCNont ram'N. Should thcHc cnquirioH fail toHuJiNly 

— UK. then w+* may hav«' rtt-ourHo to thom« more roraot*^ and 

I may add Iohh NatiMfartory nouh^'h, of information, the 
United HtatoH d«'ciHion« and tho opiuiouN of politiiial ccono- 
miMtH, not an authority, but nn argunicntN and roaHouH 
emanating from nnimuitJuriHtK and ^noit'ntifi(! men, whot**- 
viowM on HU.h (ittewtiouH are, uudoubtt'dly, dcHerviug of | 
^ great i-ouHideration. ' ik 

By referring to the Brit^Hh North America A.^t, we find 
' that the third 8nb-Hection of nection 5)1, giveN to the 
Dominion Parliament the exclusive legiHlatjvo authocity 
for the raising of money by any mode or, syMtera of taxft« j 
/ tion. S«!ction 102 providcN that all dtttitw and Vevenuen 

over whi<'h ^hii-respecttve legislatures of the soyoral i)ro- j 
vinces, at the time of tho Union, had jwwer to appro- 1 
priate, exc-ept such as ar<' reserved to the re8p<»cti?o legis' 
lati^roB, or are raised by them in accordance with -ttw I 
special powers eonfern^d. on them by the Act, «hal|^ forra I 
one consolidated revenue fund to be appropriated for the! 
public, service of Canada, &c. 
( By.sec. 121, all articles of the growth, produce or manu- 
,^ . facture of any of the Provijaces are to be admitted free into 

tho other Provinces.. 
/ , Section 122 places the customs and excise laws in force 
/ *" ^^'^ Province undi-r the control of the Dominion ^a^l 
liament, by providing, that " T%e customs and esttis^ law* lA 
fi " euch Province are to remain in force tmtil altered by the Par/w-J 

^ — ** meni of Canada." 

By section 123 Intorprdvincial customs duties are abo-j 



■J—x 



rr-r 



/i. 



COURT or QUKKN'8«'BfcNf)H: 



Sl^ 



188 



l«iiJ, ,.r«i. Which, iM'fon' tho Uttion 

'*>.h,T With th., ..x,l»„iv.. ,„; to 'a,, f" H ""'»'""•"• 

-■g.rd. .„ch port,,,.. ,f .hLi".' ri'",;,;.rr , 



«-• 



!^^'# 






U„..what«,„v.,r by taxation llr.LJT ""^ 

Vimm othor portion of lA,, A..t u.<l ...iJt "f™,""'"' 
Uhich .n„h power iHen Ifort j'^ '" *'" f '""' 
I »»w, ther« arnonly two proyirion. of the Act bv whi,.1. 

.:7;::i r Tr™ ""' """'"''-' '- -^^ • - 

«.«b«,t.on 9, ot«ot.on M, «.d they are in ;the.^ 
ItiWK. m or^fer to tte roB^ <^„ ,^ ";^^^ ."^ "'*«' 



••T 



J- 



' i 1" 



'f 







134 



MONTREAL LAW BEl'ORTS. 




1485. 



Iiii. Oo- 

& 
Lambo. 



-s 







"> 



iu counuction with this last sub-section, as if it was in 
'^iiP^Mt^- the Allowing terms, viz. : 

" It shall be lawlul for the Queen, by and with the 
" advice and conj»ent of the Senate and House of Oommous, 
" to make laws for the peace, order and good Government 
" of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within 
" the classes of subjects l^y this 'Act assigned exclusively 
" to the legislatures of the Provinces ; and for greater 
" certainty, but not so as to restrict the generiii,lity of the 
*' foregoing terms of thi» section, it is hereby declared that 
" (notwithstanding anything in this Act), the exclusive 
"legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends 
" (8). Tp the ^raising of mou^y by any moie or system of 
"taxation, with the exception that each ]^ovincialLegi8- 
" lature may exclusively mt^e laws in ilslation to direct 
" taxation within the Province, in order to the raising of 
" a:re\;enue for provincial purposes, and (9) in relation to 
" shop, saloon,- tavern, auctioneer and other licenses in, 
" Order to the raising of d revenue for provincial, local or 
" municipal purposes." vil 

There is no authority liere conferred on the proviftciaT 
Iegi8latur«i8 to raise a revenue by indirect taxation,, nor 
by cnftoiris or excise duties, except in so far as shop, 
saloon, tavern, auctioneer and other licenses, may be ««n- 
sidered as excise duiti^', all others being excluded by the 
exf lusiA'e power ' oft^xatidn conferred qn t^e Dominion 
I^ladiament by sub-sect. 3, of section 91, and by sections 
102, 121, 122, 123, 124 and 126 already mentioned. 

This is i&ade v€a*y clear by the resolutions which were 
submitted to thef Legislature of the Province of Canada | 
as the biiisis of the Confederation Act. Resolution 29 
(Debates on Confederation, p. 8), proposed that : Tht \ 
General Parliament slmtt have power to make laws for the peace, 
welfare, Sfc, and especially laws respecting : 

3rd. Tlie imjtosition or regulation of duties of Customs or\ 
Imports and Exports, except on Exports of Timber, Sfc.,frm\ 
'New Brunsivick and of Coal; and other minerals from Nona j 
Scotia. * 

4th. The imposition and regulation of Excise Duties. 



I if it was in 



COURT OF QUEEira BENCH. • >. i^ 

«tE 77lc^m«ng. of mmeif hy alt or any other mode, m 
iifilems of Taxation. 

In the Cdnfederatioc Act, the articles 8 aud 4 of the 
29th resolution were dropped, except as to export duties 
o« lumber in New Brunswick and on coal in Nova' 
Scotia, which wore provided for in another formbv sec- 
tKHis 109 and 124 of the Act, and artide 5, which be'came 
.nb-section 8 of the 9 Jst section, was modified by striking 
aut the words '« all or imij other mode. .,r .yslems oftamtimr 
and substituting therefor the words "Ay any mode or sys- 
-im oftaxattonr so as to include the duties of customs and 
of qxcise mentioned in the third and fourth articles; and 
to avoid doubts as to the respective powers of the Domi- 

Zll^fv^^! r^ ^*' *^" P'-o^i^"*! Legislatures, the 
word ^ustvely" was added in the first part of section 
91, so as to give to the Dominion Parliament the exclu- 
sive power to legislate on customs and excise duties as 

i n V .l^^^*^'' ^"^J^*^*^ mentioned in this section. 
I ^en the other sections already cited, namely. 102 and 

26, specially provide that the local governments shall 
have no other sources of revenue except tho^e expressly 
reserved, nnd those which they are authorized to raise in 
I accordance with the special powers conferred upbp them 
by the Act; so that, apart from the exclusive ftuthofity 
pven to the Dominion Parliament to raise a revenue by 
a^l modes of taxation, we have^he repeated declarations 
^ntamed in sections 102 and 126^ that-The provinces shaU 
nave no right to impose any duties or taxes except under 
tHe special powers given to them, by ^he AclT .^ 

I «ud no difficulty in reconciling the exclusive power 
given to the Dominion with the exclusive power attri- 
bated to the Provincial Legislatures as regards taxation. 
Ibe Dominion Parhament has the exclusive power to 
raise a revenue by all modes of taxation for Dominion 
purposes, and the Provincial Legislatures have exclusive 
authority to raise a revenue by direct taxation for Pro- 
vincial purposes. That is. the Dominion Alone, to the 
eiohision of the Provincial Legislatures, is authorized to 
raise a revenue for Dominion or general purposes, and 



1885. ' 

TbeN.B.ABI. 

Fire A Life 

InAOo. 

Lmxht- 



rri 



•li 






m 



t 



y^'yif.'li^p^TKfl^tSiti yfs. 




180 



MONTREAL LAW HEPORTft 



4 



■y 



H' 



V'^ 



?if 



^ & 



•«i( 



^1 ■ 










J 5^ • ■ - 

SI Si ' i '" 



1885. 



the Provincial Legislatures, to the exclusion of the Domi- 
i^re'* Life " ^iou Parliament, are authorized to raise a reveijue by 
"**"■ direct taxation for their respective provinces,- Iri\ other 
VpF^^' *^® Dominion Parliament cannot interfere with 
the taxation for provincial purposes, nor the local legis- 
latures with the taxation for Dominion purposes. 

It has been contended that, as % sub-section 16 of sedi- 
tion 92 the local legislatures were authorized to legislate 
' on all matters of a purely local or private nature in the 
provinces, they were therefore authorized to raise a 
. _1^ f^venue for provincial purposes by all modes of taxation, 
including direct and indirect, as well as by customs and 
excise duties. The answer to this contention is obvionl. 
One of the most elementary rules of interpretation of 
Statutes is that general provisions in an Act of Parlia- 
ment do not control nor aifectthe special enactments 
which it contains, ani therefore the general authority 
conferred by sub-section 16 &s to matters of a pur%-*| 
• local or private nature in the province can only apply to 

such other matters as are not specially pravided for by 
the Act, and as the subject of provincial taxation is spe-'" 
cially provided for by sub-sections 2 and 9 of section 92, 
sub-section 16 does not apply to the subject of taxation, 
(Dwarris, p. t65.) ^ 

If sub-section 16 was liot limited by the preceding 
sub-sections 2 and 9, these' sub-sections would have been 
quite unnecessary, since' sub-section 16, by the generality 
of its terms, would have covered all subjects over which 
the Provincial Legislatures could have exercised their 
• legislative authority. 

- The historical evidence* lierived from the discussions 
which took place in the parliament ef Canada on the con- ' 
iederation resolutions show that it was never intended 
I ' .that the local legislatures should have the unlimited , 

power to impose all kinds of taxes. • ^ - 

^r Alexander Gait, then Finance Minister, in explain- 

X, ing the financial aspect of 'the proposed confederation, 
said : (Parliamentary Debates on Confederation, p. 68) 
" If nevertheless the local revenues become inadequate, it 



Pr ■■•! 



OOXm OF QUEBNfl BENCH. 



U1 



» — 'T- -^ 



nhltdn^nfftf^ •^Z'^'***"^ ^ ^'^ nothesitate to 8ayTheN.B.*„. 
mat one pt the wisest provisians in ih« r.^« j ^ ''r •'^I'l'' . 

," Stitjition, and that , which afforL, hi ^ T''^ "^"" . * 

" thaf I5ife peoDle Jm7.IT ^^S. *^ ''''^^* guarantee ^->»»- 

' affairs 1^ * w * ^^^^^^ *^*«^««t »« their own- 

" thrnwr ^'* "" ^-t'-avaganc^ is committed by 

™o,t peremptory manner. If the Jen n'l^te find 
" t» understand their own 1i||LtS,"^ ^^f^ 

ALT:r°f'"°™'"'»l"»8 neceasity/- "'/''. ' 
And further, (p. 69,) Mr. Gdt added • • ■ 

in transferring to the general aoTernment .11 .w 

-'.'SaT^i:t-:;r:r Th^'^''•^"^^ *'^^' '^^^^^ 

■ Means whrbyttfin™„a?^lf°',t^^^^ T**' *" *^ ' 

Uessedby the fi ^r *° *'*' *" "hieh fc 

g tty U>e t«[ gatherer going, to every ho,.. ..I 



•■ % 



Uitiai& 




It. 

'J 



J ■1 




■ .'i 


r '1 


'; M 






'I' '■• 



m 



MOimiEAL MW ^EPOBTa 



188S. 




exacting either a capitation tai, iff a proportion of each 
'^^,'J-^L^*^- inhabitant's income, of property to replenish the proviu- 
IM..00. / cial treasury.* These Were the only direct taxes J^noW,^ 
in the provinQei^, in some of wjiich. they were raised for 
municipal auw>artitiUy for school 'puYposop. When, Infr. 
Gait gave thwsolemn warning to the public men who 
would be charged under confederation with the manage- 
ment of the provincial aifalrs and spoke of this dre^ed 
direcjt tax, he did not contemplate, that to con Vert it into the 
most popular .ta^c ever iinposed, it would only be necessary 
___fpr^the provincial legislatures .to pass an act, with the title v 
\ " An Act to raise a »e venue Jfor provincial purposes 'by 
•\ " means of a direct tax within the Province," and to .enact 
Uiat every British, Foreign or domestic Insurance Corpora- 
tion, every Batafk, every Loan Company, every Navigation 
and X^^legraph Cdmpaliy- whether incorporated in Canada 
• or elsewhere, Whether their stock Wa»4ield in the provintee 
or not, |»ut .doing business in'the province, should pay a tax 
' calculated not on the- amoniit of business- done in the pro^ 
, vince, but on the paid up capital or l^tock oif^>eabh company, 
so as to indirectly collect the greater portion of this tax . 
through the English^he American and other capitalists 
invesfiiig their mon^ in ftny ipf the commercial enter- 
prises mentioned in the act. \ " •' 
• As hpwever the Legislatures of the Provinces citnnot 
extend their power 'of taxation by declaring that a tax is 
a ditect ta^, if it is not so under the British North, America 
-Act, we have to examine the question rfised in the present 
;^" cases irrespective of the description or- name given by 1;he / 
45th Vict., ch, 22, to the tax imposed by its provisions. > 

It is not contended that the present tax was imposed 
under the authority Of sub-section pine, for it is not a 
tax raised by 'means of licenses, and it is evident that the 
legislature intended to imjnise certain direct^aaxs, since it 
' has used thos^ very words in the title of the Act,— yet it 
ii^ necessary to ascertain what is the character of the duties 
which i;he Provinces are authorised to' raise by means of 
the licenses ment^n^d in sub-sectioii'uin^, in ord^r to col- 
lect the meaning which the Legislature of the late Province 



:c:;^'::v,,;r" 



ith the title 



^"^ 



000 




B£NOa> 



Aid. Op. 
, 4 
uuDbe. 



180 

-of Canada akd the* lAip^ial Parliament have attaqhed to ism 
tht^wordij *» diretet taxation " asured in the resolutions "f^'irtALff**' 
parsed by thatlegislature and in the B. N. A. Act . . ' " 

It seems evident that neither the Legislature of Canada, 
nor the Jmpferittl Parliament did consider that the reve^ 
nues to be raised by these licenses , were " direct taxes," 
otherwise .subi^ection nine ^ould Ifave had n^^ meaning, 
since " direct taxation " wto already jffovided for by sub- ' 
section 2. »'; .V . ■ ' " ^ ' V fv 

Now, Ibt'us'see how these licence dutfes and" other 
similar duties were considei^d in EInglahd before and at 
the tinle the British Ij^orth Ajnericja Ad; .was passed. 
As far l>ack as 1808, th^ Imperial Parliament passed an 
Act (43 Geo. III., ch. 69) to repeal duties of^xdse, and to 
impose others to' r^lace them. Th^ first itpMof th0 
new duties mentioned i|i Schedule A., nii^errtKe title 
''Duties of Excise," is a duty of sixpence on sales >y 
auction of certain property to the amount of twenty shil- 
lings, and the second item is of another duty of tenpenjie 
611 siilailar sales of i)ther classes of property. Then ihe 
same schedule headed "duties of excise ** contains 'a de- 

sQriptionofpersons who are obliged to take licetnses^inprder - 
to elercise certain trades or businfesse^ and am6i|g them^' - 
are to be /ound, besides tjiose for maniifacturing or sel-' 
ling bqer, ale or spirits of anj Kind, evetif persok exet^cisin^ - 
tJie trade. or bifisiness of auctioneer, ev^y persoh" trading. or ■ s 
vending or selling co/ce, 7ea, cocQattut, every per|i»n .trad- 
ing in,- vending or 80Hing "gbld or stiver />fce,. every, dealer " 

, or seller of tobaccQ or snuff, ^fot which -licehsps they' kave . 
to pay a license fee vatykg' in amount aciordmg to. the " 
kiiid or amount of business done. , • ■ ■-. \' .. ' / • '^ ^ 

The necessities of state during the grei, continental^ 
wars of the first quarter <||/the present ceniurv -rpq^ired 
constant changes in those licenses aiid dutibr lind* there ' 

-are several statutes In which they are de^orited as excise 
licenses and excise duties. ' j^^ 

In course of time, neW taxes were imposedL and amon^ 
others a tax on Bail way Companies, which te cha^ged^ 

the number of pafsengers earned. No licenjbe is iequired 



.% 



M^...>.^ 



." !■ 



^ ^ 



^■^ 



_>< 



..'-' 






v>>' 



f 



14 



. \ 






A' «■ 



■■f&: 



» 



r 



M 



N^ 



188S. 



140 ^ MONTREAI, ^LAW REPORTS. 

m -tjils cafe. TEe tax is, hoWeyer, placed in the Hit of 
excise dntiAci . ' / i ^ 



VMh- excise duties 






IiMnbe 



•fe 



In 1864, tl^ree^ years before ihe passing, of the British 
North America Act, tKe imperial ParliaraeJt passed the 
27th and 28th Vict, ch.'56,.by w^ch it isleivacted that 
from and after the first day of July, 18&, the duties now 
payable by law upon or in respect of^he (licenses to be 
taken out in the United Kingdom V.by persons carrying 
" ouj^e trades ^d business hereinafter mentioned as de- 
*' scribed and defined by statutes relating to such Kcense^ 
'' and trades or business respectively, that js to say:—" 
" Appraisers; i$awnbrokers ; dealers in gold and silver ' 
'' plate ; owners, proprietors, makers and compounders / 
" of and persons uftering, vending or e4)os1ng for sale ^ \. 
"any medicine liable to a staifip -duty ; liawkers and 
I' pedlars ; house agents ; sellers' of playing cards not 
' being makers thereof, shall respectively be denomi- 
" nated and deemed to be dirties of Mcise, and the said 
" licenses respectively shall be grj^totei by such officer or 
" officers of Excise." -A '% 

Again, if we look at the returns ma^elto Pia-liament of 
the different sources of revenue for &e-fiscal ^ear ended 
on the 81st of Margh, 1866, the ye^ before the Actof 
Confederation was passed, we find -the last-mentidned 
duties classed among the duties collected from excise, as 
also the railway tax, the stage carriage tax, licenses and 
duties on retailers of spirits, on tea and coffee dealers, 
on auctioneers, and on many other classes of persons car- 
rying on particular trades or business. '* 

It may be true, as observed by Stephen, 1<^^^ that 
some of these imposts are not properly in the nature of 
excise duties,,, if these words are used in the limited 
sense of duties on consumption ; but it is not the techni- 
cal classification which political economists might make 
of these different imposts we have to ascertain: it is 
the legal meaning which the Imperial Parliament has 
attached to th6 duties which the Provincial Legislatufts 
arfe authorized to impose by mejans of shop, tavern, auc- 
tiopeer and other licences mentioned in sub-section 9, 



x> 



:M' 



X 



■.;:v;:.-.- ,,^. ■ .-V . .. *■ 



■f^-":,p' 



sons car- 



oouBT Of qxjmsm bench. 



141 



, 4 

Mm be 



. -^— >.- ''»"wuyH, HO licenses are issnprl o«j 

ber of miles run irresDefctiv/nf It^.l''.^^, *^" ^^ 



tiie case of stage c arriages, aad sometime. ^ fy ' 



kiiid QJF 






.'..V 









and this we find eleariy indi.at«H in ♦k , 

which >ini^-« K «*"/ 'nanated in the severa statutes '"»• 

< lared to be so ""P*'"'*V^»»^^'*^«nt has repeatedly de- 

hold that thev are of To ^^'^"^''^ England, we must 
enacting ttr/ths^h^.^'''^' '^^'^^'*^''' "^^ **»«»* »>y 
clearly fndWedfr?^^ ^2' ^^Wament 

^^^^^^^^ " 

impMts which wore diffirent f™™ T . ''^'"*" 
IheWitygiven^y'Sl^^^^^^^ ,*:• ef:!^'" ■ 
bydirect taxation. a revenue 

The next inqiliry is as to tv'heth^r the present ta*.« 

cas^ of shop and tavern. keepers, hawkers and n^i ' 
&c. ; sometimes nArtlxr k* „ i» "-vvKors ana pedlars,. 

' "''^""^es partly by a license fee and^arflv.K^ * 
percentage on the business bh ,« +K^ ^^^^ partly by a 

In the c^se of railway!!; r ^''"^ of ' auctioneer^. 

. ^oo 01 railways, no licenses are issnpri on^^^i. 

tax. 18 on the numhpr «p ^ wsuea, and the 

IX me number ot passencrers «arri«,i fk»* .•- ' 



A. 



;p''i 


ill •^' 


^^ ">'' 


H||J 




\. 



ri'.'f ,■ 



» 



*.-. 



142 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTB. 



% 



IMS. 



"* 1" 



LaiiiIm. 



i> , 






1 






.* > 






i *-, 



SI' 



U 



It, 






il '.I 



carriage, the tiamber of scats thoy ha\^, or the ntimW 
^^VinAUh' of horses attached, that is, on the napacilfy to 4o business 
|"*i ■ irrespective of itw amount, and yet th^ natjure of the tax 
is not changed by these dilt'eronces, and in all these caaes 
the impost is couNidered as an Excise duty. 
Cooley, on Taxation, pp. 20-21, says :— 
" Taxeh on Empu)Ymknts.— a tax on the privilege of, 
" «'arrying on a businesn or employment will commonly 
" be imposed in the form of un e:cciae tax on the license to 
" pursue the employment; and this may be a specific sum 
"or a sum whose amount is regulated by the bniiness 
" done, or income, or profits earned. ® Sometimes small 
" license fees ar<? yJfcquired, mainly for the purpose of 
" regulation^ but in Other cases substantial taxes' are 
*' demandedfMcause the persons upon "Whom they are 
" laid would otherwise escape taxation in the main, if not 
" entirely. In8ta|ices of hawkers, pedlars, auctioneers, 
" &<•., will readily ot!cur tq the mind. The form of a 
" a license, though not necessary., is a wnvenient form for 
" such a tax to assume, because it then be(;omes'a condi- 
" tion to entering/ the business or employment, , and is 
" collected without difficulty. But it is equally compo- 
" tent to iragpse and collect the tax by usual methods." 
- Mr. Justicd Mj/nning in the c^se of dhilders v. People 
(11 IN^ichigan, pp. 48-49), says :-l" Taxes upon business 
"are usually collected in the form of license fe"es; atiid 
" this may pqssibly have led to the idea which beems to- 
" prevail in ^me quarters that a fax implies a license. 
", But therig is no necessary connection between them. A 
" btisiness lin^y be licensed and yet not t^ed, or it m^jr 
" be taxe^ and.yet Qbt licensed." > ; '<■ ^^ 

This sl|0W8 that the character of a tax i8 not altered by* 
the ft^jtSthaij it is csollected by means of a liceniie fee or 
withoiut a license . ).'J 

In thcb-preseiit instance the tax imposed was olentioned 
as a licj^nse or a license tax, in 4he bill when first intro- 
j^uced- inta the Legislature, inuring the progress of the 
measure the title of the Bill jvr;a«^changed into that of an 
Act to impose certain Direc/IS^ on certain comibnercial . 






COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



148 



imi. 



InK Oo. 

. * 

'i<anih«.v 



.orporations. ft cannot bo roaHonably contended that the •-• 
naturo of th« tax waa thoroby altorod. The i^ame alone Th^ n. a * m, 
was changed, but not the Hub«tan(;e. "." *-''!'•• 

It is alsoevident, that tKenn^an be nodifference whether 
-the tax ,18 imposed on individuals. cbminuiie^W corpor- 
Htions. We hav(. just seen that in England an Exeise 
auty was imposed ^n Uailway Corporations, kswellas^ 
«ji the ownern of Stage Carriages and Hackney Coaches. ' 

In the United States, where the State Legislaiures are 
ondowed with general powers to legislate on all subjects 
not «peci»lly delegated to Congress repres^ting the 
Federal legislative authority, «nd where the several States 
are^ authorised to raise a revenue ^y means of Excise Duties, 

:th(f question 08 to the nature pf a tax on thj business . 
carried on by Corporations has repeatedly been abjudicated 
upon and its proper classillcatidm deteiimined ^ 

• ^"^*^In^c ""^ **"'' ^ti^nef^-Genetal y. The Bay State Min- 
.«ff Co, (99 Mass. 148), it was held that the righ^ toexeSe 
a eorporate franchise within the State gf Massachusetts 
WM the proper 8%»bject of an Excue Tax which the State 
had a right to impose. The same thing Was decided Jn 
mL'IsS) ■'■ '"'' ^"^'^ ^'' Imuram:eiJp. {^ 

In the case of the Commmwealth v. Hamilton Manufactur- 
^ng Co 12 Allen 298, Bi^elow. C.J, said: "It is to. 
rh^ar to admrt oi discussion that accordingto recent adju. 
dications of this ^ourt, the assessment which is the ■ " 
subject of controversy in these actions must be supported 
If sustainedat all, as the exercise by the legiskture of ' 
• the authority conferred by that clause of the consti tution 
part 2, c, 1 § 1, art. 4, which gives the power of imposing 
duties and excises upon any commodity within the 
Commonwealth ; in other words, it cannot be held valid 
unless It can be construed to be in the nature of an ex- 
cise^tax on the franchise of ihe corporations designated 
intheStatute &c." . , . And at p. d04, the ifTmed 

judge adds f •> These illustrations serve to show that an 
assessment based on the marfiet value of the shares of a 
corporation, of the ag greg ate of « 



I' 



'i^ 



■i 










'i' ■ f ' 

1 'J 



Y 



144 



MONTREAL LAW KEPORTB. 



'■'-y 



IMS. 



liMabt. 



*V 






" Btock, <'ftn|iof b«' prop<!Tly d«'«in6d a tax oh the prop«»rty of 
■W^iVif.**, " the corporation. • Anxl again at p. 807, "^To ou/mindH, it 
iliJ! '** * **"M>"'*^"t tt»<l dfriHi vo answer to that arg'umeut, that, 
" arrordinjf to thtyviuww wu have already «^xpreHH«d, tho 
'• anw«sHm<!nt in <iu«'Ntion in an oxt-iHo duty on Uio ftam'hig«« 
" of the corporation on whi«h it in iinpoHod, and was 
" inttmded l)y the »egi*4latur.' to have thAt o|wration and 
" trIU'ct only, and iiot in any prop(>t sense atax on rorporat.« 
" projwrty." SiNiJiW* Portland Bank v. A/ttkarp, 12 Mann. 2h2. 
Th»'Hc deoiiiiionH (VlFer from thost* rendered by the 
_ United States. 8upreme Court on the interpretation to »>e 
given to the vsrordH " dire«t taxoN " used in the eonHtitntion 
of tht! Unit«'d 8tate8, inaMmucKaw the 8u|»enie Cojirt had to 
iionsidt!; how far flireot tairtition was limited by the iieceH- 
«ity of apportionment according, to censuH or population, 
while in the other canew the naked attieMtion;wa8 Alfhetb^r 
a tax on buHinews or on what in described ah a tax on the 
franchiHo when apjilied to i^ corporation was an excise Utx 
or not. The aflirmative deciHions on this point are directly ^ 
appli4al)le to the present cases, and they show conclusively 
that in th<' United States as well as in England a tax on 
businesN or employment is c<mHidered as an excise tax. 
The eft'ect of a tax on the inanufa«;turer as in the ca8« 
of the WillianiH Manufacturing Company, or on. the 
carrier, as in the case of the Lumber Export Company, is 
just the Hamo as if the tax waw imposed on the goods 
manufactured in the one case or conveyed in the other ; 
in both cases the result is to raise the price of the com- 
modity and to cause the tax to bt; paid by the consumer, 
or to reduce the profits of the producer, in which case the 
latter has to pay the whole or a portion of the duty. 
That excise taxes are not direct taxes does not, it seei 
^admit of controversy, at least at the present time,,^at- 
ever may hav^een the discussions on tho>atgeet at an 
early date of th^r imposition. It iip.«dmitted by every 
writer on political economy, whether fciglish, French or 
American, ^nd this has not been questioned either at 



the bar or by any of th'e judges who 
present cases. , 



ijikve decided th«j. 



^r,' 



oouar Of qvEEm bvwor. 



-•-f- 



MIL 



rf there could b« • doubt m to whether, the tax impoHed 
hy th« Qu.*,v Log,«latur., I« an indirect tax. there can be 
uoue that a<Tording to Im,Hjrial legislation and American 
juriHprudfncH (there noems to be no or.roHiou whore Ha(,h a 
(juention can ari^i. in the courts in England), thut it in an 
^r^ to:,; and the Provin.^al Loginlatun.H have no uioru 
aa lonty to iini>o8e an excise tax Mian an indirect tax 

11 we now turn to the deciMionH n.nd.^red on the taxinir 
|K.wor«.confcrrcd by the British North America Act we 

" t ^" * '^^ ^"^ <2 Supreme Court' Rc- 

|H.rt8, p. 79), all the judges admitted that a ^cenne fee of 
*60 imposwl upon a brewer wan an indirect ix; at p 94 
l{[<hardH, C..T., qualilied it a« an exetie lax, wien he said ' 
It .H not doubted that the Dominion I^^ginlaturo had the 
nght to lay on thi« excise tax and to grant this license." 

In the case of the ^«,>r»,. General v. The Queen Insurance 
Co.. (8 a of L & P. 0. 1090) their lord«hips of the Privy 
Council held that the tw was not a direct tax and that 
it was therefore ultra virei. « 

I understand that the same conclusion has been arrived 
at by their Lordships in the case of the Attorney. Oeneraiy 
Reed with reference to the tax recently imposed upon 
legal proceedings, although 1 have not yet seen the written 
judgment in that case. 

I It was held in those three cases that the Provinciaf 
Legislatures had no authority to impose indirect taxer 
""l^'Hs they came within the scope of Sub^Sectiou 9 of 
I ^f: ^ V^,^ *^** *^« *^"« ™Po««d wer« not direct taxes 
It will be said that in the case of Blddk A- Daw the 
Privy Council stated that there might be other taxes 
imposed under Sub-Section 16. besides those mentioned 
n Sttb-Sections 2 and 9,- but this was entirely outside t>f 
the cas^ since their Lordships were of opinion that the 
tax clain^e^d was a direct tax and they did not indicate 
hjhat other taxes c#id be imposed under Section 16 and 
therefore it cannot be said to what they alluded by the ' 
observation they made. I am. however, free to admit 
that there may possibly be some taxes which might be 
imposed for local purposes under Sub-Section 16 



^x 



\ 



1-1 



\ IM 



Ll 






Mi 






y 



=w 



^ 



\ 



Ill' 



|;S| I. 








ue 



MUMTBJSAI.' LAW RlSI'pHm 

'■t:» 



■"■I 



1/ 



I* 



•«^,' 



m 

INK, Wnen we contldor thftt overy proviMion of thfl R. N. A 

^p'*VfJ*' A<t dhowH thut the ohjnrt of th« pf"'""^"''* <>f the m«iu»ur«< 

V WM to plaro oiM'h ProviiUHi in » Htnto <»f p«*rftwlt iiid«p4>ii- 

* . ' . don<Hf AM regardM 4m<h other, to eHtiiMinh thu utnioit ttvt^ 

dom^f inton'oumnaiidroiiimcrcial rvlatioiiH botw«'«ii thiMii, 

jA^tXclndM {"rom tjie IfgiHliitiv** authority of the I*rovin<-i>ii 

^11 r<^u1atioiiM an to triulo aitd loiitiiiKn^t^ ruMtoma iitul 

exrifte, navigation and «Jhipping, bankH, l>ankrupt«7 and in- 

■o.lv«MU7 — in fact ovory8uhJH«t whirh might givti occasion 

tirftn int«irf«n,'n<'« by on«> Provinco diri'ctly or indiri>* tly 

_. whirh would atlact the intereit* of the ot her Provinces ; it 

J m ' '** imposHiblo to nup{k>ho that it wnH intondod to allow the 

■■ M«;vHral ProvincPH Ut rais*^ their wMenut' by taxes catculutcd 

to r«^aiih tho inhabitantn of th« other Provincog, their 

monetary institutiouH, thoir telographH and iuearancu 

compHuioH, and the natural or iuduNtrial produi^ta of each 

by duties imposed, not on the produ(!t« thumsolves (this is 

expressly for)>idden by the B. N. A. A<t), bat upon every 

Kailway Company, ev«fy Steamship or other Navigatioo 

Company, whose ships should be empVoyed to move such 

products from one Province to another or to a foreign 

market. Such a pretention ' is inconsistent with tho 

I . whole object and intent of the Act, as disclosed by almoHt 

every disposition which it contains, and affords a strong 

argument against the validity of the present tax. 

y ■ The words "Direct taxation tvUhin the Provimx" seem to 

^. .imply that the taxes to bo imposed must be raised from 

persons residing or property situated within the Province 

by which they are imposed, and not otherwise ; and it is 

_:_ . L_ a characteristic feature of direct taxation, Ihat it is only 

raised from persons residing in the territory where they 

are imposed or on property therein situated. I do not 

mention this as decisive, but as an indii^ation of what was i 

^ ~~ - meaiit by " direct taxation " in the British North Amt^rics | 

Act. 

To pretend that the present tax is a direct tax, would I 
be to hold that it is a personal or capitation tax. A capi- 
tation tax, as its name indicates, is a general tax imposed 



«-r 



I 



f 



OOURT OP QUERN'S IIRNCH. 



4 f ik' 






on «u,h he.,1 of . fi^mily. or on «r«rT «•!« fnhJunt in m. 
tho .ommunitjr. I do not know how thi. oouid iply toi^N./.* m, , 
. .orpor.tlon .»,d mor. parti<,ularly when it i. hn kLhI ^^-^iJ' 
on th« capital o» «u„h .■oriK)ftion.. a„d on th« ««v«ral 
0(l.r«- whl«h th«y h«v«; th« nff.ct of whi«h Would ),« 
that ««v«nil capitation taxoH mi/fht ho imp<«,.,d „„ th« 

H«m«..orp«rat.on,Hiii„ the rftHo with th.,M.r.h.u.tH Hank. « " 
from which five or «i, tax.« aro rlaimod. by r«u««n of Uio 
H.'v«rnloffl,^« .than in th« Province. * « 

Whether thin tax ia ,.onHid«r.Hl from the evidontJnttn* *' 



.•■f»- 




twn of the framerH of the Britinh Ncjrth Ain« 
diH.|oH,Hl by itH miaotmonts. or fromVhe van 
tioHH «ontainod*in other Acts of the Impori' 
M n^gards similar taxes raiaeil in England \ 
the light to be derived from the deoiwonH of i„, 

vTJI^ ""^ **"" ^''y ^«»»<'^»' «f from .tKpre of the 
United Statca. and the general tenor of the Znitiona 

mdi«ct taxation. I cannot arrive at any other conclusion 
but tha the present taxen must J>e held to b<, «r«-,. and 

rJhr ' ^ ^"^ *^^ Provincial Legislatures have no 

right to impose. 

IWould confirm the judgments in the five Bank cases 

a«d reverse the judgments in the other four c-asea I^' 

however, m the minority, and the judgments in Te 

Bank cases will be reversed, and the othe« confirmed. 

Cross, J.:— , . , '^ 

The observations which I am about tl read were pre- 

IdisSo?.^" ^*"^'^««f « I»«P««tor fo, the revenue 
rtiBtrict of Montreal, sues the Ontario Bank as a corpora^ 

d^^trict of Montreal, claiming #1.200 as a tax upon their 
bank.n e,pie^ of $ W^^^^^^ 

f Mot. r^"?.? "*? "' P^*^ "^ »»>«^"««« i« the city 
I of Montreal, said.t^xes being didmed i^ imposed and dnl 



-T-i^ 









y 






-A-' 



'»!• 






#■ 



.11 



'^ 



If ' 

4^ 



■ 's^iMrij 



148 



MONTREAL LAW BEPOR-^. 



.h' 



4f-i: 



i'i: 






m 



■i y **" •• 

I '" y ■'' ■■ 

v ..-■ 
I .' :' ■■■■ 

I *i:'i> 

1*5:- • 

He :. u' / ' . 



i ■■;-'■' 



Init Go. 
Lninlio. 



18^5. tjnder the Statute of Quebec, 46 Vic, cap. 22, entitled, An 
'^ Fire" iffo^' *^t *o impose certain direct taxes on certain commercial 
corporations, and wliich by sec. 3 declares thai the annual 
taxes imposed ][Tpon. and payable by the commercial cor- 
porations mentioned and specified in section one of this 
'act shall be as follow!*: 1st. Banks. Five hundred dollars 
when the paid-up capital of the bank is five/'hundred 
thousand dollars, or less than that sum; one thousand 
dollars when the paid-up capital is from five hundred 
thousand dollars to one million dollars, and an additional 
sum of two hundred dollars for each million or fraction 
of a million cloUat-s of the paid-up capital, from one million 
dollars to three million dollars, and a further additional 
sum of one hundred dollai:;s for each million or fraction of 
, a million dollars of the paid-up caj)ital over three millions. 
-:■,! To this action the Ontario Bank pleaded to the effect 
that by section !>1 of tha British North America Act of 
1867, the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament 
of Canada extended among^ther things to: 2. The regu- 
jfdion of trade and commerce ; 3, The raising of money 
by^ny mode or system of taxation; 15. Banking, In- 
corporation of banks, and the issue of paper money. By 
section 92 of the same' act, in each province, the legislature 
s might exclusively make laws for amottg other things : 2. 
'Direct taxation within llje province, in order to the raiding 
of a revenue for provincial purposes ; beyond which no 
power of taxation was granted to the legislature of any 
province. The Ontario Bank held its chairter under the 
Dominion statute, 34 Vic, cap. 5,ontwled " An act relati^ | 
to banks jiud banking, amojidod by subsequent acts. Tkeir 
capital of one million fiveJjuuelV-ed thousand dollars was 
held and owned by shareholders, whereof two-thirds resid- 
ed out of thc/^rovince of Quebec. Their chief place of 
business was in Toronto, Ontario, where more than tv^j^ I 
thirds of their Capital was employed, and about a third in 
the province of Quebec; that under the powers conferred 
by their charter, they did business and had offices and 
agencies throughout the Dominion and beyond the Pro- 
vince of Quebec ; that the tax in question was notiidircct 

" ' ii m -ii ' ii ^|■■ I.I ■!■■■ ■ II I.I....- II. Ill .11 ■! .111.1 I ffi I I I...I— I * 11.11 ■ II I.I I . n il , „ ',.,m ir» TB ■ «i m ^S 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



Vii 



149 



1885. 



illH. Co 

Lkmbe. 



within the meaning of said 92nd section of the British 

North America act. It interfered with the regulation of^^i^-^j^t^- 

trade and of banking by imposing restrictions thereon; '"' 

that it affected ^eftohs beyond the limits of the Province 

of Quebec ; that it purported to be regulated by the amount 

of the paid-up capital used andyheld beypndtH^ limits of 

the Province; it was unjust, partial an^ aiscritaaiating 

against one sot of persons for the benefit of anot^r set. 

That by reason of what was so pleaded the Act of the 

legislature of Quebec, under wliich ^id tax ptil'^rted to 

be imposed, was illegal, unconstitutional md^tta^sr 

The demand being based on the provincial statute to 
which it refers, and there being no dispute about the facts 
set forth in the plea, an' admission was made of the essen- 
tial statements it contained, and the issues thus raised 
^ were submitted upon arguments made by the parties to 
' the Superior Court, whic^, by its judgment, held that the 
statute of the Province of Quebec, 45 Vic, c. 22, in so far 
as it imposed the tax in question, was uncoustittitional 
jud ultra vires. Hmce the present appeal brought by the 
riicense inspector. P 

A preliminary que^ion was raised, that the statute of 
Quebec invoked w^ a nullity and had no existence in 
law, because passed in the name of the Queen in place of 
the legislature of Quebec. I have not thpught it necessary 
to discuss this point, having no doubt "that the statute 
was formally sanctioned by all the legislative power of 
theprovince and so sufficiently appeats on the face of it. 
I4hink I am warranted in not treating this point as 
serious. 

The main question raised is purely one of law, viz. : 
Whether the statute of Quebec, 45 Vic. cap. 22, in- so far 

1 38 it impQses the tax in question is within the power of, 
the provincial legislatures- The debatal^le ground as to 
the relative powers of thi^ominion ai^d provincial legis- 
latures has been , narrowed by the i^timber of decisiojis '^ 
which have been rendered on subjects nearly approaching 

I the one now under discussion. In Severn v. Ihe Queen, ' a 

Bop. 70. i 






V 



■■v. 






f 




<a: 



[0 :■■ 



' ;*■ SI 







lA 



160 



MONTREAL- LAW REPORTS, 



m 



h. 



k 0- 



.'k 



'\i 






'•4 






.■>r 






ir 



*:|?;?r 



1"^ 



V 



188fi. 

The N. U. k M 

Vire J[ Life 

Iiw.Cu. 

Si 
Laid be. 



:)' 



i 



-*'.■ 



provincial statute requiring ik brewer to take out and pay 
a sum of money for a license for permission to carry ,on. 
his business was held to be in conflict with the poWer of 
the Dominion parliament to regulate trade, and also thalj .. 

* it was an indirect tax. In the case c>f the At(orney-Gener(d 
V. T/te Queen Imumntx Co., ' it was held that the statute of 

'Quebec, tb«^nobec license act of 1875, 39 Vic, c. 8, was 
virtually a st^p act and that the tax thereby imposed 
was an indirect tax. In the case of the Citizens Insurance 
Co. y. Parsons, ^ it t«was held that the terms, property 
and chril rights iBthly enumerated in sec. 92 of the British 
North America act, included rights arising from contracts 
where not explicitly mentioned as comprised in any of 
the powers conceded to the Dominion legislature under 
sec. 91; that fortheprotection of property ^nd civil rights 
Within the province, a local legislature could impose 
conditions to contracts of insurance becoming operative J 
within the prpvinJje. In, Russell v. The Queen, ' it was 
determined that the Canada Temperance act of 1878, does • 
not belong to the class of subjects included by^ the deno- 
minationsiof property and civil rights in the enumeration 
of powers at^ibuted to the provincial legislatures jby*ec. 
92 of the British North Am.erica act. In the Ci^y l^^e- 
dericktony. The Queen, * it was determined that the Canada 
Temperance act of 1878 was within the coinpeteig(cy of 
the Dominion legislature, which alone had the power ta 
pass such an ad; ii^ virtue of their power to regulate trade 
and commerce. In^ jiddge v. T/ie Queen, '' it was held that 
the Ontario Licens^ Act of 1877, authorizing the adoption 
of resolutions in thp nature of police or municipal regular 
tions or by-laws, fiikigthe hours for selling liquorls aid 
keeping open billi«^ra tables, were of a local character for 
the good government of taverns, &c., and did not interfere jj 
with the general regulation of trade and ccmamerce, and 
was within the powers of the provincial legisiature. i 

^ ' 3 L. R., H. of L. and P. C cases, p;*f097 ; 1 L. N. 4ia _J'iJ _^ 

: '^'TJ^ R., B. of L. and P. G. cases, p^ 109 , 6 L. N. 25. ^ -t 

^ «7L.R., H.ofL.andP.C.case«,p.l85; 5L.N.234; .. i ^ 

* 3 Supreme Court (Can.) Rep., p. 506. 
^ *^L.^a.. H. of L. and P. G cased, ^ 117; 7 L. N. 18. 



TT 




COURT OF QUEEN'S BDNCH. 



Iftl 



ina Co, 

* 

^Lunb«. 







m 



These decisions will still leave considei^ble room for i<« 
discussion as to the relative powers of the Dominion and'VN.B.AM, 
Provincial legislatures, and the fixing of an exact line of ' " 
demarcation between them, which it kp^ears difficult to 
reach on any general prfiiciple, and has consequently in 
part to be considered in relation to oach individual case 
w^yph^seems to present a doubt, and that now under dis- 
cuss^jniay be fairly reckoned as one of such cases that 
.8 a.9ft^m>t wholly settled by ahy previ«is decision, 
although Its determination is dptibtless aided by the 
prmciples laid down in the previous decisiMis. It is 
therefore, yet an open question whether the tai in que*? 
tKMi, imposed in. virtue of *he statute of Quebec 46 Vict 
cap. 22 purporting to authorize the levy of what it terms 
direct taxes on the paid-up 'capital of baiiks doing busi- 
ness wilhin the province, is tOl^a tnre,; an^ Whether said 
8tatute.4n so far as it purports l;o impose such tax. is un- 
^^stitutionaL It may be assun^ed that th#>|.^r of taxa^ 
t,on by^n independent sovereign state, is unlititedas re- 
gards the persons and property/falling within its jSlisdic- 
I ton. The powers we have to^onsider are derived from a 
plenary source and hav^to b^ construed as fallin^ith- 

WhQther^the powers, conveyed are in the aggregat 
plenary, being distributed, tlLt )s. divided betwfrfwo 
authonties, the I^^nion.anS th[|>rovincial, thlyt^nnlt 
^plenary to each, but the envision has been so contrivl 
^ to be in part exclusive to/ each, and in some partitul^ 
must be conceded commbn to each. The terms hi which 
these powers are conveyed are of necessity very general for 
he most part and although. asVegarda^rtaii of th!m" 
de distinction may be obyious. yet there are otherJ 

b! ^"^u;'''l'^*' ^^ ^^^'^*P each other, render, 
mg It difficult to obtain a clear line of demarcation . 

The powers of the provinces are - exceptional, and are" 
rr«t ^^'Z*''" "" *" ^**- ^'' ^l^iol^ emprises generally 

mce. The powers of the Dominion are general- ^ 
[make laws for the pea. .. o;ier -and good government of 

i "^ ■■■■ii-i i ' .■■ — ■. — ■ ■, — ■■ — ■,■-, „ .■■,. ■ TT ^ 61 __— ^.^ 



^ 



'& 



\. 



A 



•I'ifc 




4k' 




V 



w? 



'A 




■6 



" 



s • 






i 

'I 

r. 



152 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



188A. 

The N. II. & M< 

Kin< & Life 

In* Co. 

liiimbu 





% 


: 


V 

» I 






( 



i.k. 



■^ 



Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the 
• classes of sulyccts assigned exclusively to the pjovinccH, 
but for (lertainty, although not" to restrict the generality 
of the powers conceded, an enumerated class of subjec-tp 
"^nd^r twenty-nitfe heads are ai^sigued exclusively to the 
jDominion, none Of which subjects are to be deepied of a 
local or private nature, as assigned to the provinces under 
section 92. It follows that the powers of the prffvinces 
are Mfstricted to those specially enumerated in section 92 
as aesigued to tiiem, and are liinited by the ^^erms and 
c(^|pj|ions on which the cOncesl^ion is made. ' They ^e 
f^rtnw restricted by the exercise of the Dominion enu- 
merate^ powers specially given by section 9^, which may 
conflict with tnne enumerated powers of'the JSrovinces 
assigned to them as specified under sectj,^n 92. Where 
exclusive powers seem to have been given to both, as in 
the case of direct-- taxation, then, with due conBideration 
of the above qualification, the provisions so conflicting 
must be read together so as to giVe. reasonable effect to 
botijj^ especially where such seems necessary for the work- 
ing of the Act. A 

With the aid of these inferences drawn from the terras 
of.t^ s^tute, and making allowance for the ground 
covOTcd by the decided cases, there is still muph room for 
i.'ontroversy in the cases that are continually arising in 
relation to these relative powers. The experience of the 
United States of America and the judicial decisions ren- 
dered there on constitutional questions, are naturally 
looked to as of value in sohung questions arising under 
our constitution. \One consideration of importance to be 
kept in view in the application of decided cases there, as 
precedents for us, is that with them each state was con- 
sidered as originally pdssessed. of sovereign authority 
over persons and property within its jgirisdiction. That 
in forming their confederation all powers not specially 
conferred or surrendered tathe general government were 
reserved to the States. The Britiish North Amerida con- 
federation proceeds from an opposite standpoint, on the 
opposite theory, providing, 'as in effect it does, that all 






_^^r 






4^-4 



i^» 









■ \''* 



onBideration 



COURT OF QUEBN^ iENCH. 




.'*«■•' 



?lj»4 - 
liw. Co. 

Lunbe.- 



, -" — «^ * 



powers hot expressly con fetT'od" 05 the local or provincial >«»• 
legislatures are atft-ibute^ tottit of the Dominion. The%lN-^Bj* M. 
.» power of the state gpvernments in the Ujiited Stages is ^ " * ' 
relative to tfie United States government. greater ,than 
that of the provinces to the Dominion ; yet it has been 
held uniformly by th§, Supreme Court of the United 
States, that thegenerjij^government was, possessed of cer- 
' tain implied powers convenient or necessary for carrying - 
dn the function^ of the government, and that within > 
their sphere the government of the Union was supremeV, 
Cooley on Taxation, at p. 67,' No. 8, say^^^khe means or~ 
agencies provided or selected by the federal government 
as necessary or convenient fS^rthe exercise of its functions, 
cannot be subject to the taxing power of the sfates. The ^ 
states cannot tajg a ban|[ chartered by congress as the fiscifl 
agent of the government, in support of which he bites 
the case so often referi-ed to', of McCul/ough v. !©€ S(ate 
of Maryland el aL\ where it was hel4. that the state 
government had im> right to tax, any of J;he consti- 
tutional means emplo^ed^ by /the^overnment of the 
Union to execute its constitutional >>wer8. The states *' 
had nO'power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, 
hinder, bind, or- in any manner controF the operq,tiOn of 
the constitutionaljilaws enacted by congress to carry into' - 
'effect the powers vested in theWtional government. The ' 
bank in question in that case was a quasi commercial 
enterprise owned in great part by private shareholders, 
yet it was chartered as a United States bank, and was the 
■financial agent of .the government- 0. JjJ|,^rsh'all, who ^ 
pronounced t^e judgment, ainon^ other reilBis stated^in 
effect, that although no express authority was gijrefi iby 
tile constitution of the United States, either to cif ate cor-" *^ 
porations or to establish btoks, and although it w^K^n; 
ceded that the inherent pow«r of taxation .remained, with •; 
the people of each state. to the full e-jjent to which it had \. 
not been alienated, although, the federal governments 
itself could exercise ^no powers but 'those granted to it, ' 

. '4WheatonSupieiiteCouHBep.',p;316. *\ , -, 



1^ 




^k 



ml 



■'III' I 



ill 'M 



♦> 




w 




MOSnilBAL LiW BEPORTa 



t' 



whiclt VtI^ entimeTated'powoTB, vet the government of ' 
"nwJ?iJfc**'*h'iB uni<|u, limitodas it certainly was, nevortheloss wa^ 
^"■jk^- «aprera| within its 8pherei|i9i.at although amon^^|^Vj 
^^' i^^nm^rl^e^^powfirB were nolio be found that of eut^blii ' 
\ filfgalbaii^^ cor^fttio^, yet as anj^tribt 

,if»i^ 80verfe|^ity .it |^"Id' cremt corpOMti^s, Mi asi 
* i|v )f*|wi8 to^^ry intt^liect, the^t)Je(5tB S ^ ^^^^mojit 

ilish! 



;Vi. 







the Wniteft 



b coul 
l^mrougl 
^ by thig iiatl 
mM^( the m^U 
oti^titutioh, and , 
land^j|iat the^fiis ' 

:^!and was incompati1W«( 
i^aj ;jaws of the 'Un||n ; 
by the tfnited State^m- 
attfil^ute of powers, ]||id 
doiilthe state governn^ent hnpio^ I 
rigM to jl^^*^ rtl^ poWei; of the United Stat^&i^ I 
»te(fii^e,*tt||(Je^^^^ that a poW^e3^tiit'"« 

^gi^^rpf'llgland to.Wk;the.i«|nij;created by thie,;"Pi|it%^ 
^ |ifcattesi, wo^ be a poWe^ id idestroy, and if wielded jjjfl^ 
^ ''^^"^"^^rent lEnd wonjd be fijlco^patibl^ wtth .the poW^ 

^i^'widipres^gt^e; 4h^hwhen Msuch repiighaiic^ ; 
", ,. ||p|ted tlit0'irtit|[iority '*which w^l^pi^enie should control 
K^^^*'M*^ftOJk yieldj^o that; over.. wpchjijt is supreme. He 
^^ I' fk^Her reimjw^^ I^'the stiit^af dould taf one instrmn^t ° 
" \ ero^ioy^ by the g^terninjent |n; the ei^^cution <^ife,, 
V ^^«|^ they ilught tax any lind*%ery ol^er instituticW. I 
; tjf hey migh^tax the mail • |they might tax the minf: i||s ' 
/lpfl|^t tax patent 'rights ; they mij^ht tikx the papers ol ti| ! 
^'ctjPom.ho?ise ;, th^^ mishit tax judicial proceedings ; th^y 
'^•might t^x all the .means employed by the government., 
~t wte, liowever, conceded in that case tha! the, denial of, 
he state power to tax did not^eijitefid'to thte real est&tj 
the Ijank, nor tq the interest of ,tbe, sliareholders resi 
within the state imposing a 'tax upon their propei 
shalrefei^' '° 







■■^^ 






L 



•f 





;l 



OOUBT OF QUEElfS BSNCH. 



m 



i 



vox 



L«nb«. 



fc ''^'^^ ^- ^*«'''«<^.' it was held that the State Legist ,. m 

I /^°t' ^X taxation or otherwise, retard, impede "^^P-A^-' 
g. auy manner control the operation of the con- ^""- '^" ' 
"n^ enacjted by Congress to carry into execu- 
*|tb>tte8ted in the general government. In 

' |««:*%ate cannot ij^ the Bank.of the United States, 

m ttiat *%|httempt on the part of its agents and officers 

*Si3!mJ^ collection of such tax against the property 

' ^JS^" ^™' ^ ^® restrained by injunction. In Broum 

'''iff^l? '^^'^'^'*^'^'^^'^*'«**»^^ «^: We admit 
fW^'^mto pe feacred, ^he State power to tax its own 
'.citjzfens U their property,, within its own territory but 
we cannot adipit that it may be used Bo as to obstruct the 
free copMj^of a power given to Congress. In the case of 
B^ttroad-a. V. Pennistm,* it was held by a majority of 
the judges that a tax upon a- railway company incor^ 
porated by Congress to run through several States " 
.imposed by the State on property of the company within 
Restate, was valid, but a tax upon the operations of 
the company beingXa direct obstruction to the exercise 
ol^|ederal power could^iot be allowed ; thus making a dis- 
tmc^tioB between ataxbn the franchise and a tax upon 
the property. T^e mino^ olW judges were of opinion 

that the^tax even dn the pro^tM the company, although 
withm the taxing l^tate, was liw^Jid. \ ' 

^In applying to ti^e present caseTthe principles that run 
through these decisipns.I thinlfit «t ie assumed that 



'i^ 



4^ 



linion Gt)vern- 



where, by the Briti8l|i America act, the ^^_„„ ^„v«r„- 
ment are given an exclusive power, ii staids' in the same 
relation to the power, and is entitled tp the s^me protec- 
tion from the courts as the ppwer conceded to the Congress 
ol the United States for the exercise «)fJhfttonctions of 
gov«^mment. Moreover, \' ' ' .-^mx^ 

expi^s power given to thi 

'^2 Pbtere' Eep.,4>. 467. ' W'- 

"V Wheaton; 738. i 

. ' 12Vheaton, 448. li i 



.'/T 



f I' 




bng^ei^ of ti 



pe^^here an 
States 





t"*,.' 



m. 






TT- 



,«>.■>• 






■^•%-' 



\Ti''j^: 



/i-^ 



> \ 

•r- 111 



166 




lAt LAW REPOBTa 



,'-^ ' 



.J» 



Im.Co. 
A 




. f 



'4 


% 


.ii 





•t 



,\ 



i*"*! has boon, Hy thd saitotioD^ 6f ^e oopiftiB, intftrfored with t>y 
'^wre' ij Jflf'tMkXation or othorwittN by.tho State power. 

If the powo^ of the Dominion IjOgiHlnturo be uxclnsive 
for the n;;gulation of tra^o and coinraorce, and inHhe mftt- 
ier of banking and ihe in«orporation of banks, and the 
pdwer ^f ftio Provincial U'gislatures limited to direct taxa- 
tion and the issue of jcertain jilasstw of licenses, it follows 
that banks <^reated by the Dominion Tx'gislaturo, for the 
purpose of doing business throu^ont tht^ Dominion, can- 
not .be taxed, retardedl impeded, burdened or in any man- 
nar (-ontroUed by the operation of any'',enactment8 of the 

ro^iucial Legislatureii. The «amo.should hold good as 
regards the reguUtion of trade and comtnerce, at least as 
to general trade and eonj^merce of public or generid interest 
to the Dominion. 

This is^ evidently the View adopted on the subject in 
the United States. Coojby, at p. l62, remarks : When^j 
therefore, it is held th^O^pfiwer to tax is at the dfscretiou 
of the authority which wields it, a power which may bti" 
carried to the extent of an annihilation of that^ which it 
taxes, and, therefore, mlay defeat and nullify any autl|£>rity 
which may «»l8ewhere exist* for the purpose of protection 
and preservation, it follows as a (;orc^(|ary that the seveifal 
Btates cannot tax the <;ominerce which is regulated under 
the supremacy^ of Gongreiis. Burroughs on Taxation, p. 
93, sec. 64, Regulation oi Commerce. The" constitutioi>* 
provides that Congress shall have power to regulate o^m 
„merce with foreign nations, and among the several Stat 
^ and with the Indian tribtjs. * * * The doctriiie^ is 
now firmly established thk the.J;axing power of t]ie States, 
while]^it ipay be exercised upon all 'property^^^^thin tl^eir 
limits, upon the goods ciJrried or the instr^ents of com- 
merce as property, and thus indir^cuj^affect commerce, 
yet where the tax law amounts to /«^ regulation of com- 
merce it is void, because in ^flict with. the pow;er 
^ granted to Congress, vi^i^h, ^^en exercised, is exclusive- 
and supreme-^ 

It 1^ admitted in tEes^ Ajaaerican c«^es, as in fact the 
powers by the constitution reserve^ to the States, i>er- 



)* 



,t*1MC 



/•-. _V 



\K' 



\ ^ 



^- 



♦ - -Vr~^ 



P7*a^* 



Si.'^^--i f,te'?f<^ ' 



COURT or QT>EEii?«.Bl!fNCH. 

l! " 



1'61 



mittod, «^h of the States tho rigKf lb ."rijfttte baiks and 



laas. 



•ower to tux a U.ilited 7°*4^ 



tions of thmr own creatiori, but the power luxm a uiiitec 
«toteH bank u« 8uth,— that is, on it« e;^i«tew;e or its opeTa 
tion8, in othec wordN, Hh fran.hist^ ojr capacity to do busi- 
n.^88-wa8 always denied and held to btvuncoii8titutional 
Ilr therefore, a hank of the Tfnited8tftte«. could not be 
tared !)y State power, nor thereby retarded, impededr-hin- 
dered, or in any manner rontrollod, by the samu pro.efo bf 
reasoning it follow« that, in a matter where thi^ Ddmini<to 
Gorernment,hn5 been attributed exi-hisive authority, the 
Provincial Government cauiwt bo permitted to render its 
.'xerci8o nugatory by a«8uming to tax the legitimate oper- 
ations of that Dominion, Qovernraont acting within ii» 
sphere of its attributes. The same rule should hold good^ 
whore the tax affects trade and commerfee, Ht lea«t the 
gci^ral trade of the country,. The Proviircial statute 46 
iVic,cap. 22, now in question, is the renewal, with an 
extension of the subjects, of the. attempt 'made t& raise 
revehue from insurance companies under the statute x>f 
Quebec 89 Vic, c. 1. The proposed exaction being now 
by the f*mor of these^acts, styled a direct tax; the first 
attempt, proved Mile, thc» tax being held unconstitutioAal 
^y the deeisTon in the case of the - TAe Atlorney-General v 
TI^%ieeA.lHsutmce CiK The fact that it is now called ^ 
*ect tax, will not alter its nattrre, nor do I think add to 
Its validity. '. v V ' ~~^~~^ ' 
-• It^seems to me that the tlix in question is open to a 
.. further obj(Htion by the Avant of::t«rritffrial jurisdiction in 
the Quebec Legislature over Ihc -etibjeet'of taxation. By 
the terms of enumeratibii 2 of ijc:^ of the British North 
|raericaact, "Direct-taxiition withik the Province," the 
Provincial Legislature is not entitled to exorcise its taxing 
PQwer on objects bejond the territoriaMimits of the Prov- 
ince. . The statute ^fQuebbg 45 Vic, cap. 22, sec. 1, pur- 
ports to impose th(J*ix on evervjw^nk carrying on the busi- ' 
,n|8s of banking in-this ProviAKid unS'er sec. 3 the rate 
^ tax ip.scheduled accordihg«|lie amount of its paid-up 
capit»I. , Tfafrimspondent iyiSank incorporated by act of 



IiHiiib*. 



^ 



1* 



"''« 



HiMil 



jV if 



P.V' 




'■^: 



%"'. 



T5g * t MONTREAL LAW REFORm % 

Parliament, and holdii itfl 






^•.il! "yf»**' Dominion »tatitt« 8; 
''""'^' hfiul o.Hco i« at 



Umlw. 










( ; 



._ — _.^ 




If • 



W 



pr«8ont (charter andnr tho 
, and ani^audrntrnts. ^fti 
io. Itti paid'Up capitnl 
iH lo(iit«*d itl T<u|H|li,'l(iW^<^ar m boing Trovincial projj- 
(trty;, in within ^^tjuriHdirtion of Ontario. . itik truo Uuit 
it iM roproHentw in th»< rrovint!« oT (^iM^bw; hw Uh agenttt 
then?, and it i^mplwyx »om« of itw (^jf|)itul in tjk< ProvintH- 
of .QavbtK!. ThuH« aguntH iind ^^iy^Ui|ril|IW^'^Y*''^ in the 
IVovincrof <iu«<bo(' are wiihipnt^trmA ^unHdirfftrti, ^iiid 
M 8urh ni^y Iw prop<'r 8ubj<«4^8 of tuition Within itsPm* 
vindatikB'wor, but thoy nr« not taxt^d oHpuch : on the t«)tt« — 
' .truj-y^ w|v tl»>^ paid-up oijpital of thn bank, itH franohiiu or 
ciipkApfdo da busiuoKM, Which in attemnted to be taxed, 
an(iwfit«h i/ not within the jurisdiction of th« Province 

u Jr the franchiNe or cdpital were taxable withia the 
P^evince of ^ehec, it woi^ld be much wore legitimately 
taiabile in OiU:a^fo,ii]ad would be ef ually taxable in eat^h 
of the Provinces in Iwnich^he bank might open an agency, 
so "that it might cajpo to be taxed for the necessities of 

' stAjjjyi several fcovntyial Governments, as well as liable to 
a JiTco A^siitiitib^Mtij^rom. the federal power. Thi«, again, 
would"'l^t'm"'yf8revtrijth direct taxation of its property 
within the Kfrovinile. tk snckcas^, would any or all of 
theae taxes bo direct.? and ^' any, wjuch? NoV, 
althongii diapllcato taxat4pn is ttbt^jmposwMei the law 
generally ..presumflj^gaiiiy^* it, '*ivjfa. M^ithiili the same 
jurisdiction; see Co^ey on 'taxation, p. 106', nor do I' 
'thi-uk that it would "bo tolerated, that by coeyjjion ? of 
th^agem?y within 4i*^^ftl^it8, a^r||*inciii €Hj|Tsrhni^nt 

. cotild lay a tax on a'^franihisQ jor 'propigyt^ .beyondi^B 

*S^liiits. . A Government with DlenftrYi|ijiA^erB might exer 



\t 

is-'' . 




' (4se such indirect i*oeTt;ion^ bu|| 
&: l^le tp theitircumBtanee* of the? 
of "^oitf^eVaf ion nec^'s^rily 



aWn ai 



idse. *The' principle 
hat oiie . Pro\^lti(ie' 
oSlcL-njot .interfere wiilf the taialj^h^ subjects ol* property 



gjAher intippliqa** 
nysdse. *The' principle 
liPlhat oiie . Pro\^lti(ie' 



l^ 



^ 



ahothor Province, iipnce, the qualifying words " yirithin 
» -s. -#°th'^Piroyinc€»" in N©. 2 of sec. 92 include this: limitation, 
; * which- would hafe bewi implied from ih6 circumstances 



<■ .- 



; . ...» " ■., ", 

> »-•-'. .if ■ 









:'M:: 



able in eat^h 



/ 




CX)IIRT Oi QUI 



BENCH. 






I 



■ii- 



ia» 



itn 



had even tjy. oxpr,.88 qualiflration boenramted. Cooler ■-" i 
ttt p. Ifl, »oy« the power of taxation, howovor^^ ij, it-TiBN.aiw 
.ham-ter and «can^.inK in it. oxtent, i. n.K.e««urily li^ W* 
ited to «ubje,t8 within the jurimliotion of the 8tate. These ^ 
«nbje«t8fro pi'Monn, proiu-rty or buHin.'HH. And at p 14 
h« «ay8 taxation and^protj^ction are re<.iproral. A pernonal 
tax cannot k, a^,d against a non-r«,ident ; neither ran 
the property o^.^non^re8ident bo taxed unUm jft ha« an^ 

neCUyojOtlnina m the Court r,f ApiH,al«, Ontario Mr 
J««tice Pa«^^on i. The restrictioZ confine suci W 



tiOll^withitt the-irovinre. I think thin ban not been 
questioned. The paid-up .apital of a bank i^ecessariW 
a very f^Iadous data for taxation. At theTory out^t 

W h ."•'Vu^'^''' '^' '^^^'^^ °»««t of necessity 
^ZlTn ^r^'^^'^^y preliminary expenses. If p J 
Froua m business its assets must .ome to exceed its 
apital; if the reverse, its paid-up capital is an 
unfair bas.».|| taxation. Whe« the franchise is taxed.^ 
.« usually on1« estimated valfte as a facility for doi^g 

" f!f *^">'*^?ilt>«» tS «««t and exercise the powers 

10^ Tsl' 'fri^ f""^'"' franchise; anH 
^«1 ! f ;^' ^ ^' m^^^^ This tax is in its essen- 
; n Ti ' ''™' "^ ^W""^'' *"' '^"^ the same priu- 
ciple as to the powers of tSe Slate to tax applies to domes^ 
he corporationswhen they are first chartered as ai>pUes 
to loreign corporations". Again, at n lid fi fii p„^u»i 

How ?w,d im i..f t!Jpor;tio^):'^4:!;tSt; 

Wimes ta,ed.on their nominal capital, and sometimes- 
oMs actual .value When taxed on its nominal capital, 
^^taxis^n the whole amount paid in or secured to be 
paid, without reference to losses. The capital is referred 

as a measure of the p«o« to be paid for the franchise. 

n the case of a foreign coM,oration, the bonus or tax is 
«be amount paid for the p^ilege of exercising its cor- ' 
Fra o.powers m the State. In the case of adomestic cor- 
P&^tion, It 18 the amount paidus the price of its corporate . 

'C8rtwright,ix635. "> -\ '► / 




» 



I * 







ij 



m 

li 

i' (III 




fs 






111 - 



■i.' 



— M- 



rr- k-^VJ3^ 



r . , 




/y 



MONTRSAL LAW KKfU 




I 
t . 



/ 



it 



ImmIm 



'4i '< ^ 



I 



%.,\ : 









'♦ 



H 



,'r 



nxiNtence. Tt onTf exi«t« by Ihe in'riialwiioii' of lh« fitiito, 
'^^/■(JUJ* and the Htnte may pr«»i«rih«' thu toriiiM on whuh It will 
grunt itM pcrmidiiion. From thiit it would appouf to hav<< 
bu»n hold in thi> Unitt>d 8tttlc« tiint tho Statu powor can 
(ax the I'mnchiMM of u ttorporation <-rimt(^d without th<f 
Htnttf, but only on thu ground of its boing a Ucouiie or 
pt'rmiHHion to do buNilioHM within thu Statu, but thu taxiiif^ 
jfoNvur ol tt Sttttu ux(i'«'dH that of a Provihcu. It uxtundn 
to thu ru^ulation'of iradu in thu Statu, aud to all |K>w»rii 
ot' taxation not ux^»HHly Hurn-ndurud by thu State. It iw 
iH>t by itH chnrtur/limitud to taxation within thu State 
ThiH,do«triiiu, I Appruhund, would bu inapplii-ablu to th«> 
»ir<umBtuncu«y)r thr I'rovintuH and thuir rulatiouH to the 
Dominion. H would bu likuly to luotl to miBuhiuf, and I 
think ought; to bo opun to quttstion ®voii ip thu Unitud 
StatuH. Iiithu case of l*aul v. Virginia,* it wai» hejd that cor- 
poration/ wuru t-reationHof local law, and had not uvonau 
alMoluto right of fucognition in other StutuN, but dui)ondud 
for tkat and for thu unforcuinent of thuir contracts ui>ou 
tho jwsuiit of thji Statu (whuru thuir contracts were sought 
to be enforced), which might be given accordingly, ou 
But'h turmN as thoy pluaHod. In thu present case, what 
as been attempted to bo tax(>d has not been brought 
Within thv jurisdiction of the Lugislajturu of the Proyinc*^ 
of Quebec. The tax is on its paid-up capital whose situH 
is without jthe Province. As to whether the tax is direct 
or indirect, I entertain no doubt in my mind that it is, in 
its nature, a very indirect' tax. It is uot on property nor 
on persons, and it has to be collected not directly from 
the object taxed, but indirectly by operating on tho 
agency and proiwrty which the corporation may have 
in the Province, not certainly from its franchise or 
paid-up capital, therefore to my mind very manifestly 
indirect ; but on the general question as to what are direct 
and what are indirect taxes, I have found it difficult to 
arrive at any well defined recognized line of distinction. 
As near as I cajfT arrive at what should be reckoned a 
direct tax, it is one levied immediately on property or 



/ 



t I 



' Wallace, p. 1«8. 



Iv 



-A 



T 



•w 



& 



i ' 






OQUHT OF QUfiENIi UMHGU. 



pdf^iiH iind pnrhApe on innonift. I doubt wh»»lh«r in any >•«> 



• ttwa Ux oi) a <<»rix.rftti<)n or oompony m iuoh, that in <>ii ''Vl ^i'lfrf ' 

I to do huliintiHN, rould \m rnnk«>d ^'V ' 



ilN oapacrity to «xiiit and 

in either of thou.- vloHtum. If itd proiM-r NitUN wcro with- 
out th« jumdirtion of thn taxing power, it could not be 
l-lfally taxed. In any <•««,. it« .haroH held within the 
Vnmnm and any of i(M proporty thor.^ situate, would a« 
(luch U hablo to taxation in tht* itatno mann.T hh oth«T 
|>roperty pertaining to individuals. The taxation of dom- 
••Htit! oorporatiouH and oompauiea would »h< open to the 
ohj.Mition of duplicato taxation, and would to my mind 
iM'an indirect tax, aa one in"fhe nature of a licen«e im- 
IKmed upon their rapiutity to .'xist and do busineiw. and 
which would have been vhmod an a lictMin« tax had it 
iHM.n intended to empower the levying of it, on the pro- 
vniaal government. I am not quite o«rtain that their 
lordships of the Privy Council did not intend to decide- 
Hquaroly in the case of the Utarttet/'ameral v. Ue Queen 
Insurance Companf/, that a tax of the nature of the one 
now in question was unconstitutional in whatever form 
imposed, whether called a direct tax or by whatever name 
It was intended to be levied. They certainly ruled in 
in that case that the tax was indirect, and as regards 
. l.»H8ilication I cannot distinguish it from the one now in 
question. They also held that the act in question was 
vi.tually a stamp act, although in name a license act 
The case of, Severn V. The Queen seems also directly in 
point. 

Whoever remembers the general sense in which the 
subject was discussed in the press and by politicians before 
and at the time of confederation, will have little difficulty 
m recognizing tHe nature of direct taxation as tlien under- 
Htood, at least in the then province of Canada. They 
doubtless had in view the example and received construc- 
tion of the terms in the United States, the inlden was 
looked upon as one which would fall umS estate. 
The pharges of government had been sufrSu^W for the 
most part by customs duties on imports, to whicli some- - 
thnig had been added by the license power. Except for ' 
Voul. Q.B. jj * 



U>%mlm> 



m 

u 

I 



■ft'* 



Mii39Bl 




»^ 



Sit*-' 



162 



VOrnXklLU liAW BSl^BTB. 



Mf». 



IjiimtM!' 



-. ii 



,»tf •^ 








municipal^ptirposes, f6r the mpk pftrt iti the cities; tlwro 
Th^°^^: i«-,;0vhad been iio^'impostVen property or |wirBQji»: As expens^g 
inS;^('» q( the government inereaafod, tho*o was au, apprehension 
that those might have ^o be rt'sorted to,- A resort to this- 1 
mode of raising revenue viraS iboked wpblii as -an oxtreiiae' , 
mea,8ur6r and ofte likely to J)e very luxpopular, but of 
. IKMsibkrnei'essity, nut likely to be resorted to so long i\fi 
the government could exist, and carry on its functions by 
- only tiixing imports':^ .' '. ' : ' • i. 

[ ■ In forming the confedorsrtfon the danger must havi^ 
° bejjn -foreseen of albw.in j^ ;the lotargovernmcnts the 
'poSver of jndjterjttaixtition. It would o))vio\i8ly bft their 
interest tol^xist'iind defray thtjir charges by imposts upoii ' 
--^tlie trade of /the country, "tooro especially the through, 
trade, and tlieir inclination/y«'0uld*4nrturally-le^d tJ|em to 
avoid a" direct charge ouT^eir constitiu^nts. 4^ ^as of 
, importance tha't trade should not l>e embarrassed by .local ^^ 
^ burdens, hence its/j-egulation ^was ftbsigned to" the.Si 
Poiftinionr'- I cannot thintc that a tu;^- uifon oorpOration? 
dr coiS^anies is-s^ch, can be considered u direct tax, movb • 
especially, 01^ tj^ose' haviii^, their* proper situs without*: 
. '^the province, il6r c-aii suchiax be held legal 'Jjfi 'the face of 
i. the other moons' already. .jst|||dj." I thei^Qfdfe concur in 
' the judgttiehtVe^ideted in thi^case-by t^e'Superior.Court. 
I^hqld that the tax in questioii V tfts cauR<* is unconsti- 
V tional %njd ,void, and that^^the ju4giAcnt of the Superior 
Court in this ciise should hfi coijfitmed-. I am, however,' 
'^ J with the Chief Justice- in the" minority «»► legards the 
.opinion entertained by this court. ^ " ,v * . . ' 



i 



t 



1 1 %'.j — 



I 



m 



►Tessier, J. 



Apre^ les longuo^ dissertations faites par xo^s coUeguo's 
qui m'ont precede et les nomb'reux precedent^ etautorit^s 
qui ont 6te cites et coriimcntes, il est asscK 6v^dentque |a 
matiere j^st epuisee et je ne veiCx pas m'exposw a fai^ (l§s 
^' obsetvations qui no seraient qu'une rejlfititioTi db cj^ui ^i 
ete*dit. ■ . ^•— >v " '^-■V ■ 

Je ir^^|Ktentetai de mentionner brievement loS pro^ 
positi^^jui resuK^ent^ja^ opinion. 



T^ 




V I 



^ 



}d to' ihnA 




^URT 0|;QtTEEN'S«ENCH. 



168 



' X. L'actede la ^4:ioiif6d^ration a conf6r6 ^os JtoHYoirs • ^w- 
. distinct^ en OftTtains Ci|s 6t des pouYoirt concurrents en 'W^- bam.. 
rortaius autres cas an parioment ffSd^tal et anx Umhr K^^" • 
tares proviuciales. ' '. \ * '.> . . .ufib..' 

L©8 It-gislatar^s proVinciales -sont des gouvemementg ' 
qui ont Ion droits et privileges inh»'»ents a TexeKke d'.un ^^ 
S-ouvernement : la m.mtion speciale di' certains difeits- ' 

partiottliers dans la 8ot;tion O^-^n'est .qu»$nanciatif^, sn^ ,«! 

tout ( u considC-rant la sons-section 10 qui dit : ''' ot g^nfi- • " - 
"yalement toutes les matioros d'une faatur« purement ' 
"locale on privt'o dans la Provinoe.'^ , . ' "* 

' Le droit '4e taxcr pour prfelever un revenu et payer le^. . 
dfpenses publiqu^s n'est pas un attribut do la souv.-"^ 
rftii>ete sou* la constitution ariVHaise, mnis un droit inhe- 
rent des Parliaments efr leqi^hituro^ qui sont desffouvoniP. ^ 
, m<>nt8repr68entatil8 4upeuple. 

. Dans IacaHsedoi«ife,V>e .y mdfi^eA'xm des jugos'dtt . 
Consoil Priv6 s'ost expj-im^' ainsi : • 

, " Dans \e» Ihmites de sa juridlt-tion et dans la sphi'fe ([o 
. "se8pouvoirs,.ia.L'-gisJature locale est supn^mo et a la 
"m^brf^orit6que'-lo parlement impfirial ou le parlo- . 
;'top^dek;:^uissance'auraientdan8 les mftmes^circons- ' 
l^taneerjiSur eonlerer ^ une institution municipal, ou A 
tin corps de^ or6a^n, {1utorit6 de faire ^cs rdgl6me»ts 
1^ ou de ^sser "des resolutions relatives aj^x sujets sp^cifi^ 
en cette^fi^n ou .potir la. raettre en operation et tin 
assurer l^^ffijjfV, '^i»" - " . ' *" „ 

2. La taxe^^estfoii en.cette cause est une taxe- 
dnecte ; il d&t .vrai que I'acic de la Confederation rie d^finit 
Ci} que o'est q'u'une taxe directe, ni anouiie de nos lois. tl ■ 
pre8ont<; taxe n'est, apres tout, qu'une cqntribution moW 
Iterc-ou une taxeJnobiliere q^tji n'esf .qn'une taxe- dVk . 
;' qWBt le plus 6ertain, {'est qu'a pari la taxedirecte 
snr les jb^rsonnes ou la ta^e irtdirficte sur les matchan-" 
"dises importfies, c'estVque Sur' toutes les autres taxes ks 
t'o^nomifit^s ne ^o^ p^ et^ ^pnt eA. contradiiftjon, 
commpleditdooley,onTaxation,p.6: "The term direct ) 
^ taxes IS employed in a peculiar sense in the* Federal ^ • 
"Constiluliqn," en-Angletertreren Frimce fet aux Btats-" 



i 



k 



# 



it 



JL 



. 1 






1 



4' 



%■ 




'"■mii 



tg 


M 


.Ht.^^ 


^y 


M 


IH 




^ ''"'Ml 







^'i 






164. 






|tt)N^EAX LAW REPORm 



m4 



% 



f} 3 • 



i^T^ 



'i> 



sH 



t. 



JiMinbc. 




« « 



\ 



11"^ 



"vj- 



^ 



'►- 



^^t ^Unis, lorsqu'il s'agit de les closser en taxo directe on 
T-'j.'^^ »•,* M. |,j^jj.g^^P ^ Lew. dfifinitioiiK aux J^tats-Unis ne peuvmif 
H'appliquor*l2l, comme dit M. Ijeroy-Beaulieu, dans son 
" Traits dft ia'lAci«>n('o d(# Finan<;es " tome ler, p. 2JU4 
apriBS avoir d6montr6 que la dt'finition den impotfJ difevis 
et imfirects, doiinee par ^'administration, dans diflfiferents 
pays, n'est pas tonjouTH exacte, il propose la suivante 
cjpmme etant la plus scientiiiquc et la plus satisfaisanto 
qu'il ait pxi trouver ; 

' '\TMT,Vimpdt direct le legislateur se propose d'atteindro 
" irantddiatement du premier bond et proportionnellement 
" k sa fortune ou a s«is Vevenus, le veritable contribuable ; 
" il sui>priine done; tout intermediaire entre lui et le fisc, 
" et il cherche una proportionnalite rigourouse d&rim^L„ 
" a la fortune ou aux facultes. « 

'.'Par Yimpid fpdifed le legislateur ne vise pas imm6diate- 
" ment le verrtable contribuable et ne cherche pas a lui 
" imposer une charge strictement proportionnelle a ses 
" facultes : il ne se propose i'atteindre le vvai contribuable 
" que ]>ar, ricochet, par itou,tre-oo^, pari repercussion ': il 
'' met des intermediaires enjte lui et le fisc,. et renqncer 
" une strie-te |>roportionnalit6 de I'impot dans les «as parti- 
"cuiiers, se coutentant d'une' proportionnalite relaibive eA 

" g6n6l^l. " ' 

fciST. Passy, qiji a Ibumi au Dictionnaire deVEeonomie Poli- 
tique, puyie par MM. Coquelin et Guillaumin,, rartide 
traitant de /Vwp6<, dit aussi : . 

" C'est un usage reyu dci diviser les impots en deux catt*- 
" gories distinctes. On appelle directs ceux que les contri- 
" buables aoquittent eux-mfimes pour leur propre compte:;^ 
'" on appelle iW/rec^s 'ceux dont certains d'entre eux ne , 
" font que I'avance et dont ils obtieunent le rembourso- 
" ment des mains d'autres personnes." 

Mill— 'Principles of Political Eronomy, Livre 5, eh. 3, so^. 
1, nous, dit:- ' M 

," Taxes are-either dired^or indirect. A dmct |p ^is one 
" which is demanded from the very persons who, it is 
''intended or desired should pay it.^ Indirect taxes are those 
"which are demanded from one person iii«the expectation 



=^ 



OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. *, 



im 



'• and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the 
" expense of another : bvlgH are the excise or custom. 

Walker— Science of Wealih, p. SB8 : 

*4 direct t(oc is Remanded of the person who, it is 
" intended, shall pay it. Indirect taxes are demanded' from 
" offe person, in the expectation that he will indemnify 
"himself at the expiBrise, of others. " , ' 

Tel est le systeme qui est le plus g^neralement adopk- 
aujourdliui." '^ ' ".. 

lTne.Qompagnie incorpor6e n'est qu'une personn^ juri- 
dique dans le sens de nos lois ; oela est'defini dans jiotre' 
code civil, art. l"?, sous sectidn 11^°" Le^mot persorine com- 
' prend le^ corps politiques et incorpores." 
_ En interpretant ces d^iinitipns il nje ptfrait Evident que 
fi'est une taxe directe sur la personne'iuridique on. legale 
qiti paiei directement la taxe. L'actiQiinaire est atteint 
directement, parce qu'il est ccm-fondtf avec la corporation 
c<^me membre de cette coVporation. C'est le capital 
vommun de k corporation qui est taxe. Co n'est |)asune 
liceape ni nne taxe sur la franchise, ^arce que rien dans 
cette loi en que8ti©n.n'emp6ch6la barique de contiuuer ses 

transactions ; chaque part ni lefr affaires de la compagnie 
incorporee ne sont taxfeeSi 'X V 



1885. 



Tho N. B. ft M. 
Fire ft Life 
In«. Co. 
ft V- . 

LumiM. ^ V 



m 



% 



4f' 






». 



3, Quelqne soit i;ppiuiQn th6oriqu« des ^conomistes sm^ i,. • , 
les taxes direc^e^oiemdirectes, ^'taj^ctuelle ealr;tii&''/* *'f ' • • 
taxe qtoe la lefgislatmre de„Qu6l^c"1tVait le poutoir d'ira- '"S ' 
poser, en ^jrenant I'ensemble die nptre constitution. En >* 
disant .qjie la legislature a \^. droit d'imposer les taxes 
diri'ites, il me semble qii'on a voulu simplement consacrer J S 
que Ie8..ft|i8latures jJ?<Jviittciale8 n'aUraient paS le droii-.'^J 
d'lmpog^e taxes sur'les importations, qni est le arand" 
, exempli' reconnu de la taxe indirectj En ii^Sint^ 
qiiestioii, si la taxe.^n question en cette' cause' s6ra ^y^ 
indirectement par d'autres, comme.dans le cas de mai4 
ohandises import6es, on J)*ut dire qiA^tte taxe sur \€ 
-capital des societ^s on cQmpagnies incdfjorees elt une taxS 
dlreete qui n'ftffect^^quela corporation et non pds les per- 
sonnes qui font aflfeifes avec plle^ Kfes actionnaires et 1ft 
compagnie, incorporfie ne font qu'un, c'est la mfimp per-' 
so^foiroant un ^% uuique juridiquement. ' 



4 



■% 




* ' 'i 



• II 



"In 



lliu 









'Wi i. 



-tr 



/9 







Intl. Cu 

A- 
Lttinbe 



n 



^^^ 



■^- 



.*v y 






p 


.^*-*^-."-^ ' 


\ 


• ■ • . - 




m 

* • 


i 

r 
4 
\ 


«• ' 


, 


" % 


t 




f ^ 


1 



leg MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. * ^ 

»8i» Quant k robjection quMcTiCapitai d^s bahqnos ot atttres 

^jVj^^-JYtre'' ^o^P^S^**'^ %'^0''P0'"»^'*-*'* *^"^ CU plus grande partio situe ' 
hors de la province, c'est^une* objection 8j>6tneU|p, mal 
foud6o ; lo capital .d'tine banque tt'est paiTdi visible, il est 
c<ni86 exister e^ entier et r6pondre en entier pour les, 
affaires ou il y a un bureau ouvert. Par exemple, un 
di&posant qui dC'pose millo piastres dans la Banque du 
Commerce a Montreal a droit" de se iier "^ tout k capital 
<|g cette banque et a recours pour la remise de eon d6p8t 
> f '.^M)i)tre le capjtal entier de la banque, quoiquecette banque • 
' ^ f^v^^mploie uue grande partie de soii capital dans la provime ^ 
,f' , ^^^.d'Oiitario. Par un effet de la loi, une baftque ou uno 
bo^JpSjOTie* incorporee transporte tout sou capital dans 
' touibleij lieux ou elle transige des affaires. 
~ "I^^Si des actionnaires residant^^ofs de la province, "ejr~ 
, Aii^eterre, aux Etats-tJnis, cela »e Ikit rieii, il n'y a qu'uii 
.' elrt' mpral et juridique dans leqlv^l sojit conipndus tous 
; ■ les actionin^ires, n'importe oii ils "resident. Par exemi)le, 
f"^ stipposonsque le parlement I'edferal ait impose la mdrnc 
' , taxe dont ilest ici question, sur lep bancjues,- cep institu- 
tions pourraient-elles eviter d^ paye^ ces taxes, en all6= 
guaut que partie de leurs action^ajres demeuren^ en 
Angletorre ou ailleurs, et que partie de le,ur capital est * t| 
, engagee dans un de leurs bureaux etablis en Angleterre 
pu aux Etats-Unis ? jEvidemn^ent,* cette objection serait^ 
' rejeteo ; pourquoi ne le serait-6ll0 pas, lorsqu'Jl s'agit de 
la meine taxe impos6e par la ll!j^isl|iture de Quebec ? 

L'atte de la Cpnfederatiottf ite fait dans le but devon- 

vilier les interets ^t les dtplll de province pre-existant ; 

'< cet acte 4oit 6tre liberaleii?^t:ittterpret6. Ce n'est qu'uhe^ i 

alliance federal e, dans Ift^elle chaquei province a ^te ' 

;. constituee avec un goui'iilKinent reguliel- ; ces provftic^s 

^^doive■nt raispnnablement et libefalemenlJj^ayoir le drc^t de 

se mainteuir et de pr61ev6r les revenus necessaires » l^ur 

. maintien. ' , % / " ' „. 

''Si on eut voululimiter les pouvoirs des legislatures pro- 

vinciales a cerjtains sujets particuliers, poutquoi m'aurait-. 

' on pas d6fini ces pouvoirs' et dit^«ensuite que tons les 

, autres pourvoirs appartenaient au JParleiaent F6d6ral. 'Au 



*', 



1 



-xl 



. . p 



'•Jf» 



.!•' 






'-':%. 



OOUBX OF QUEfiNBfBENC^. ' 






1885.'' « 



contraire, il a ffllu spficifier dans la section 91 les pou- 
voirs particuliers de co parlomeut dans oertrfins cas, "f^/, NjBjAjJ 
comme dans un trait6 eutr& deu^ pafties indepenjiautes ^'j,^- ' 
qui 8p6cifie les droits appartenantilchftcuuodesd^x. ^*^^ ' 

Les compagnieS incorpor6e8 forn»ent une class'e g6n6rale 
de gbns qui exer^ent dans I'Etat des privil6ge8 do com- *- 
merce^aus 6tre responsableH sur leurs propres biens comme ' \' 
Jcs autiVK individus, sfim avqc limitdt'ion de responsa- ' ♦ 
pi bilit6. Oen'est/iuejustequ'ilscontribuontaux revenue- 
' de l| piovince dan^aquelle ils i6iit affaires dans'nn but 
*de profit. , X « » - * V ' .'/.••' 

i mon avis; I'acte de la*OohfM/'tat|^ est utl'inodele de 
k 16gi^ation que j'ai toiijbnrs admirtv - II V lallu .«u gr^d ;" 
r effort de- science, d'iutelligeu(>o et" d*ejip6riQiico 'pour'^iv ^^ 
JF compfis dans upe loi de;4'7' article8;„K reglem«jit des \ ' ' . ° 
iutfiydts si^varitis ai> plusi^^s'ptofmqes cpiiVrant ut!'/ f"' ." 

immowse territoire, avec db» &yt,tejpft«kj de lo'i (iiffSreiifS. Ij&h '* - 

termes g^n^rau* dont-on s'e^f'servi montreut qu'ou a," ."•-• 
voulu^donuerftneeJftsl;kih^nMoe8sairedau#''ubtre"coii«tittt-° ' « 
tion. C'est d uos tribUuaUx de doiiner un£ intei;pr^tation , ' 
faisonnable powj-, concili^r tons les ili^6r6ts^et'jidu pou* 
.creer *et favoMS<jf ceux qki-^Ont di8ji|.8eg ^ fel^ver des cqn- #; .^ ," 



«it„ 



II mesvaenible j^riaitement" r&woniiable ^.ife "(jje* com-' 
P*g»»# incorpor36«s,-qui ont la "prbtectioji dt»8 lois provin-' 
cialetfi^i profiteut de nos Ws de police tit mum^ipale«; '^ '''"" 
fournissent leur p»yt,de revenw pour I'e i>utien- ^i) notte " 
gouvCTnement provincial. . " • '' " ', , , 

» Je coneoUrfeXolontinj:s daijs 1^ jugement de" njetlcf coiii;, " * 
. i**! F^^%»^* pe<^ti' taxe comm^.etant cOnstitutionnelleV t 
h'^le n'est l>as excessive, ellt; est raisomiaWo' et justiliable,' 
' -etjeetpisqu'elledoit ^"tremaintenue. * ' 

, :'M*0sAT, J. >— • ♦ ' ^ - . '■/"'' r 

One pf the learned counsel who dddrtias^d the court 
.said.^hat; instead of ^ettln^ clearer, the dividing liiife . 
L between federal and local powfers was getting, more 
' obscure. TJnfortnnately this pessimist view of the matter^ 
is not together uiweal. Opinioiis are v«ry divergen.t, 



H. 



■*^' 



'k^' 



■I 






.u* 






4i 






"^ 



,> . , . 



T- 






I 



-'^2?>-v>V»i?:->-aTj 



'H, 



1 .'*»# 
it. 



"i M 



't-'.. 






MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



flWA. 



l|P* 



inn. Co. 
liuinbu. 




r 



\1 




•^ 






and many of those who are qualified to Kpeak, and who. 
''\?i^\^-,;J',**- moreover, are onti^^ed to speak with authority on tht> 
subject, seen; to disagree irreconcilably on questions of 
the utmost importanct\ This is not altogether satisft^^ 
tory, it must be'conleMsed ; it' is our duty, however, not to\ 
be ^discouraged but to strive manfully to find out the; 
solution of all these difficulties. ,Some solution there must 
• be ; and i.t will be; discovered by those alone who seek for 
truth tMftd noi for triumph ; and, above all, by those who 
^^are jibt seeking to further some cherished political dream 
^^i^r sj^lfish project. In deprecating certain kinds of discus- 
,si6n, it does not follow that one dreads strife, or«^; alono 
itent to see a, cautious reserve or a lethargic indiffer- 
ence. On tKe contrary, it is salutary that every possibl^^ 
position should be debated with the utmost zeal, and vj^itlf \;':, ' 
ihe' keenest logic. What is to be deplored is the walbte 
ol'.timvvttnd effort, and sometimes talent, which Icould be 
turned to better a«-count, in sustaining imposii^ibl« themes 
or in <'ir»'ulating irritating subtleties. If <vonfederation is 
to be a success we must interpret the constitution with 
the utmost loyalty. In great measure the responsibility 
of this task devolves upon thi> courts. At all events, 
there the questions jn- their most abstract form present 
themselves, and therefore it is that every judicial utter- 
ance on 'this subject should be given forth under the 
sanction 6f the gravest re^iponsibility. _We awV dealing, 
not with a trifling s^t,ute pas8ed,4o regWate some paltry 
concern, but with tlie Constitution of, perhaps; a grtsat 
nation. Speaking with the fullest consciousness of this 
responsibilijty, I do not hesitate to say that to preiend that 
the Acts of nHand 1791 have any direct bearing on the 
interpretation i^ be given to the B. N! A. Act appears to 
mp to he neither loyal nor hon/Bst. Again, to ni^agniiy 
the powers of the l^^al Parliament, by a forced inter- 
, pretationof the ConstittititjAal Act, so as to absorb Almost 
all the local powers, is disldyal and dishoi^st. \ • 

Being of this mind t a4opt unreservedly the doctriire 
put forth by those oppiQsed to the tajj complained of, 
when, they say, that the powers of the provinjces are all 



. < 



A-, 



1 " * 








\ 




• 'f 








#' " 


" . ~ 


, ■ - 


v 


- a " 


£ ^s'-i 




m 






^, 








• 










' -'* 


lH:i 


*■ 












'. " 


* ■ 




ff 








■ ., \ -^ 


^Mk' 


V* 




t 










. u 






^j 


- 










/ 



I COURT OP.QUEBITO BENCH. 






ie9 



to be foun^ (consigned in the Oonstitiitioiial Act and its '^m 
amendments ; and by parity of reasoning it must be ^'"^^I'l'^^f' 
mitt(?d that the federal powers are derived from the same ^*-^' 
source. Wo may say of Canada,* a« C. J. Marshall said of ''"'"^ ■ 
the United States, and with greater emphasis : "This \' 
goj|:)Brnment is acknowledged by all to be one of enumeri 
ated powers;"— McCuilofh v. Stale of Mari/land.' Heiic 
wo„hafe the dbctrine t'verywheri' proclaimed that the 
local legislatures are as omnipotent within the spheres of 
their powers as the Dominion Parliament is within its 
jurisdiction. It wouM' be difficult to arrive at any other 
conclusion, for wh'tm^tjie Queen, Lords and Cbmtnoqs ,- 
give a power h-cannofbe questioned by any other autha*. 
rity. The ei^t of the grant maV atone be questioned. 
'•Lest it be thought that I unwittingly neglect advice . 
pyoffered by high authority, I shall "at once refer to a 
ditium of the Privy Council v^ich now 'especially de- 
mands our attention, and whi«-h, it appears to me, may be 
easily misunderstood." Jsi the case of Tfie Queen Insurance Co. 
,V Parsons^- their lordshipp said, referrifi^^ the difficulty 
oJ arriving at the proper interpretation of the language of 
hwls. 91 and U2 : " In performing this difficult duty it will " 
" be a wise course for those on whom it .is thrown to 
"dciiide each case as best they can, without entering 
" more largely uponlan interpretation of the statute than 
" is necessary. for tha decision of the" particular question 
"in hand. If » this rule were adopted literally itjwould 
be the enthronement"^ of empiricism. But it is to be 
observed that their lordships only gave this caution when 
d«alrng with the dangers of the double enuiheration of 
sections 91 and 92, and thd evident misuse of the word ., 
exriusiref// in a«;h section. The warning was against 
making precedOTts before experience had given a guide 
as to the working of the new constitution^. So considered, 
I recognize the wjgi^om of the caution, and I inVoke it as 
an admission of gr^at authority, that the work of recoir-\ 
ciling these » onflicrting expressiqns must go on till all the \.^ 

' 4 WJmton, 405. ' , \* • " >X 

3 H. of L. and P. C, 1090 ; 22 L. C:. J., 307 ; 1 Leg. News, 4la /' 



*t 






y* 



- I 



\ 







, 


11 




•its 


aw 


H 


•'. 


liHl 


RsaC 


1 






>« „ 


m 






milk 


H 


I. 


"tai 


— SP^ 


1 


_ 






^H 


tf 


"4m 




1 



■/•'• ■,1 



/ 







jL 





.;> 



ito 



liOIlTBEAL LAW BEPOBm 



|i!l s" 



ins. 



Xtm. Co. 
Lambe. 



,:^ 




■1^ 



^ 



\ 



poRBihle cBneH have been disposflS of. The spfecial appli- 

Th* N-l'-jJjM. catiou of thie admitwiioii wilt appear more clearly late/ 6n. 

from another quarter we have recent l;|^/TOne|V^ed aii 

intimation aM to oiur duty,' whi«;h also deitenda our 

notit^o, and requires qualiftcation. Tho leained Olyief 

Justice of the Supremo Court is report tjd to ha re said tkat 

all th« Courts in Canada were hmnd by tho (ecisiontf of 

the Supreme Court. In this saying there \k just that 

grain 'of truth which is dangerous. It is a\ rhetorical 

rather than a legal way of putting the mattel " Aiunt 

rhetares, judifatum esse partem juris." There is \no Such 

institution of the law as that laid down. Tht) Jioitision 

binds in the particular case ; it is only a ruhi of Niutho- 

rity in other cases. Now the basis of authojily is reason, 

and, therefore, that only which is reasonable is author 

tiye. It is doubtless very inconyenient that jurispru' 

dence should be uncertain, but ft \YoiUld be still more 

in<'onvenient if courts, out of aft obsequious deference, 

adopted as law that which flearly is not law. In practice 

we follow a middle course, which, Vhile it tends to avoid 

the perpetuation of error, to some^ extent renders the 

administration of justice certain. Vbluineis off bver-rule4 

cases and the dicta of very distinguished judges and 

jurists attest the correctness of this remark. In Hogan et 

at. 8c Bernier (21 L. C. J. 101) a Tery able jodge, now no 

more, referring to the case oi Bmion He Hjfdt^8ai&.: " Je ne 

me crois pas lie par. ce precedent, et je r»-gretterai« de 

donner mon concours a I'etablissement d'une juiispru- 

denbe que je crois erroaee." The precedent, which Mr. 

Justi(;e Dorion deemed himself justrtied in rejecting t* 

authoritative, was a judgnae^t of the* Court of Appeal 

confirming a judgment of his otiFtt court in wvKrw. To 

this I shall only add what Hale'says aa the point : " If iB 

" truerthe detsisions of coui^^of justice, thongh by virtue 

" of the lav«}8 of this realm they dO bin^ as aHavr between 

" the. partiei^ thereto, as to th« paiticulat case in quefitioa, 

" till reversed by error or »ttaiBjt, yet ^;hey do Uot make a 

" law, prqiperfy .so called ^^r tiit oi^ly the king and pa^ " 

y liatoeat <JAa.?;dbsi; jet they Jwjje ft gyeat weight and 



/^ 






1»,v 






#:■ 



\\;- 



■'^. 




, I 







'<J()UBT OF iiU££Niy lUBNCH 






m 



^ 



IM. (!o. 
. * 

i4Hnb«. 



" imthority in «x|>0Tihdingr, declaring and publishing what ' »» 
" the law of this kinkdom in, ospeciallr when HUch. ded-'"!?,^. n *rf 

NIOH8 hold tt couBonnucy and congruit^ith re^lujtipns 
" and decisions of fortoor times. " HiMi(|Rj«m,mpn Law, 
(hap. 4, voh 2, p. 142.1 I allude to thisl^eoiaily. as t&e,; 
aulhority of precedent^ has been particularly insisted 0» - 
in these arguments, aUd it seems to mo well to "obsenye 
that two things are to be exaipined when considering a 
precedent : 1. Whether it is precisely in point. 2. Whether 
jt Will stand the test of reason. And in deciding as to 
■ this last, whether it haslbeen assented^o aiall tii^s. •• 

The «a«o o'i An^en 4- flie Queen /««i O'^as'beon relied 
uiwin as conclusive authority against the validity of thu 
prftj^ftilt tax. To me it appears to decide al^pblutely nothing 
Hiiat lias to be decided inlthil case.. Firstly, then, let us 
« Wiiio what wiw, submittedHp the Privy Council, and 
\thflt was decided there. 1 When the caae came before us, 
only, two propositions we^e submitted, (1) whether the 
'tux was a diye<t tai, and ^loneequently under par. 2, of 
8^92; (2) whether it wafe, as it >wa8 .called, a license;, 
under par. 9. Hqiu it was! held; unanimously, that the 
particular impost then in question was ujot direct taxation, 
and, by the majority, that itlwasuot a license within the 
ttj^Fuis of {)ar. 9. This decision was confirltned by the Privy 
Council. Had the determination of these iSfues «been all the 
scope given to the case, the decision mi^ht noyk have don. 
much mischief, but unfortunat^el y on^^^f the learned judges 
in this court, ii^delivering hi« opinion entered "uijon adis* 
cussion of qnesUon3 of pplitic^I economjl^, purporting to 
bt' f^upporfedjjy Quotations, whiich was evidently intended 
to lay down a- general and authoritative distinction be- * f 
tween direct and indirect taxation in allV cases. It is. an* - 
uttgracious task to^ criticize a work whh;^i_neceBsitated - 
considerable laboifr''(^n the part of its author ; but. it has 
obtained" s6me reco^itiion, and to my mind it seems so 
fallacious that I deem it my dut^ to combat its method |f^ • 
and ^ts conclusions on the first opportunity. I may add ' 
to this, th.at the speculations on the subject of political 
economy^ which it is sought to incorporate into the law 






/"Xv 



X 






%%. 



•» f r 



hv 



Jtio N. tt Jl M 

Iiii. Co 



IM. 






■uf 



t '•*! 



t;s»i 
It 

Mi 



■liM''' 




t '. I 



^ 



11 ''*h 



MONTtlEAL LAW REFOBm' 

it recognijjod tTuSSr-Wfi j?eouUlhrly Ifablts to". mintoiKvi)- 
tioti. Af^Withop Wjfutuly, ill HSh rflctuTeB on P^JW 
«<<"onoirtf','%roT\im«iurM tHo HtuUtmt to <<mit»<i«'r " #^^r 
dofmition of tn(hiu«j/l t»miM, and iurt'iul udlwin'iK'o t6 ih« 
««nH« dt^fiiiNl aH th«» first— tho mont important— and the 
most iillitniU point in the scioiico of political iH-oiioiny, " 
I^ect. IX. DiHroffftvding all muh caution it wuh unh»!Hi- 
tatinfjfly iissortcd that all th^i authors wor«» a^rot^d, l^rciic;!!, 
KngliHh and American, legal aiid lay, on the lind.ofdomai- 
cation, bt'tvveen- direct and indirect taxation. Strictly 
speakinj?, with the writin)fi:« of politicarwonomiBtu wo 
have nothing to dp. If a tcZ-hnical meauing iH tobegiviMi 
to a word or wordH in a wtatute, that meaning muHl ho 
proved by testimony and not by boolcH, like every other 
fact. We do not even accept ibfeigi> law, of which lh« 
course of our studicM might eimbl» \\h to know HOriiethiim', 
on the authority of books ; .how then <'Ould we be expect- 
ed to gilard ourselves from 'error if we attempted to deal 
with the technicatities of particular sciences, of whi<h wo 
may bo preg|||^d: to be perfectly ignorant, on scrapH 
culled fi:oij||^HHorkH of ^6culative writers ? 

I do ^jCnHn f'^*'l myself obliged to show that the 
scioritifij-lJIHHpi submitted to us do not sustain conclu- 
sively the theirs they were brought forward to support- 
but- the i'oufse ioUOwedrin the ease of Angers \. 'Vhe ^ueeu 
Ins. Co. illustrates so fully the evil of neglecting the ordi- 
nary rule I invoke th&t I shall hot hesitate, once for all, 
^to protest against aujvil practice not to create a prece- 
dent), to point out the errors to which it has given riBO. 
It was evidently expected thn,t we should understand that 
the division between direct Hid indirect taxes was this, 
that a direct tax was one = which the -person who paid 
it was not expected to get out of another; while an 
^indirect t^x was one for the payment <Jf whi^ch he ex- 
pected to be recout)ed. That this was the lesson su^)- 
. posed to be taught, and on which all the economists 
were said to be agreed, is beyond question, for it was 
repeated several times at the\ argument of the t^es 
now before us. In one place Mill says i/omething like 

V ■ ■■ 



srsBT 



Cfi, 










'■fT' 



4?^^J< 



*» 



> I 



pOffTBT OP OITREW*" MlN^ 



178 



i(;h Mr. JuNti 



1CH1 



MMS. 



Utmlw 



ikii^ I (jtBote flpom the pamsiij^o on _,. 

T.i«<her«fttt r«lii.d to nh^w that h»« h^ re«d withereryb<Kly%'» Kf M-C 
u.ulVvery»K)4y with him ; '< A Oirwt tut is on* which i« V"^ ' ' ; 

a<iJ^aiul<'d from tho vwry porROu> who it ix intaultd or 
• vAvim/ HhouUl pay it. I«(limt (iuoh .ir«» tho^o whi 

(l.-tnimdml iVoni oho p^tnOm iniho. fypmiation mi 
' (hat h<^ Hhull iiulonniifyhiinNiUut th^expouBOG 
' such m the uxciiw? pr th« (uistomii," oto. But thi' 
vvritor nirrioN his dorlrin.' out, lor h.^ ikUIh : • Most 
" on oxpondituro un' indirect, hut sonu^ uro dim I, 
' i^posod, not on the produi-nr or seller of an article, 

iminodiati'ly on tho conNumcr. " Now how do«'8 th.^ 
toHt oorrespond with what Adiun Smith ways : " A' d^r^oi 



N^„ 



tax oporatfft and taHos effect independently of (ioU8un^J>: " " 
■ tioi^ or «»xpouditurc, while iudire«.t taxea iilVvi oipenHea- 4,, 
" or consumption, and the veyenue adsing- fronvthem in 
' dependent thereon. " - ' V,. 

Thefle systemH, then, are totally dilFerent, and, It«ke jt, , 
neither indicuteh the moaning of parliament in ouacthiff 
pirr. 2, sec. 91 11. I^. A. Act. Again, many of the oconomistsi, ■ ,' 
• <ind Mill amongst them, olassify taxes into direct and iudi-. ■ 
rect. However, in IJi/lUm v. The United States, Chfiso^ J., 
Niiid : " I believe some taxes may b») both direct «and indi- " 
roetat the same :Ume. " Mill also -says, "The iinanmr ' 
systems of most o^iutries comprise a variety o{, miscella- 
^^^'om hnpoaiti ncitjtigecitf/ induUed i^^ of ' v 

direct or indirect; tiies: Pr. of Pol. Ecbu., chap. V, p. 1. ■ 
The legal definitions in- France of eoMribututus directes «t 
mriirertes do not cover the whole ground of taxation. See 
what Merlin says as to the droits denregislrement. He 
shows they are not iudiroct under the deiinitioii, and cer- 
tainly they are not dirofit atocoffling to their s' 

Turning to the Frencli system, Uo ^imilaritj^n be ex- 
pected between theF*»iich and Eugl^shyCi^s, fbr tW' '" 
former write under lawsy^hich ItmV.ellittle room for 
doubt as to what is a direct tax in Franc 
ludire^ne. In one of the serafrs qUoteS^tfom Saly,' he 
tell us this; and'a'hote, on the svefy next* p^e to that 
quoted by Mr. Jiistice Taschereau, is specially iiSferted to 




»,. 



/ 



|-'K 



-/-t;4v-^- 








■, .'- 


' •- i- 


»■■■',: ■■- ', ■■ 


.'■''"' .■■■}\.r. ■ 


.':..■■ 






t 




i 


m 


;■ '■•' >■' '■- F 


\- '.|,> ■, ■'■ 


.- ■ ' ■ . ■"■'.■. . I ■ 


'■■;■■ 


,. . .. -J--.— ---, I, ; 


• 






■ -vtfV'- ^ 


-■; r;>g: 


. ■*- ' 




"■xr- 

\ ■-'■ 


...■■. - ' 
.... ,_ - . .4 ■,..-,.■ 


— -r — rr— 


— — 5 

■■■-' * . 




r . . 


:"--^;- 




;.■.►-"■..".- 


■■■^: •■■■■■ -V*. 


■ ft 


"■■ ■ % '„ . ■ 





*?;■ ;•!,'¥ 



#. 





i^ 



1t^^'* 



t^ •14*-., —rntut 



#■» 





" ♦'..., ' 


1 










i 


,-; 


















• 


- 'i 


( 


























1 




. 






„ 




-, 


. l 


"^ < ' # ■ ■ 








'.■^4' 




/ 










■ 


■ * 


• 




<" 


- 


1 


1 


^■"%i ' ■ 


■ ■ - ■ ■ 1 ,.- ■ 


:" ■;' 


'. ■ ■■■ ■'■ r " 


\ 


r 


. '1 -' 
■ 1 • 


1. 


- 








« 


» '■ 


» 


# 


.' • 








( ",' "' 


■ .■; \y' ■'. ;,• , 








\ : , 




' ■ 


- 


It 


. '^ 




^L.' ■ 




* " 


' 






, 




■7 ''_ 


i-iKr '-'^i. 








\ ' 




,/ 


'; • '■ ':' 








i 


^ 




; 


' 


> 










■ 


HUH 


■■■ 


■ 


■ 


■■■I 






HH 


■d 


■ 


B 






, « 














^^^^^^^^^^^1 


^^^^^^^^H 






^^^^^^^1 






^^^^^^1 










k. * ■"*' " 












r 

- 'i 

. ' -^ 



»^. 



«■ 



-n 



/ 



'^. 






I* 



TMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-S) 







Bi* 



14 

11.25 



laM2.8 

^ K&' i2.Q 










5? 








.<^ 



^ 



.V 





't 






-5fc 






:a 






Z 



^ 



^ 



«► .#. 




■■'H^ 







_SciHiGes 
CaiTxMion 



23 WBT MAIN STRilT 
WltSTiR,N.Y. 14SM 
^ <7r6)«72-4S03 










*» ,* 



■\ 



^ 








6^ 



r' 



A 



-.i/' 



\, 



^-^-^ 



■*■*'•■■'••?:., 
'i^.. 



IV 



41^; .: ■,:1'.^ ■ 



'^• 



hUC 




'^t 




-iU 



MONTREAi^ t;aw REPonm 



1H85 



Inn. Cii. 
Liiiiilic. 



■.■'■I . 









jft-. 



V -^- 



preyent thi^f cttrSory reader making the mistake into which 
''\?.N- JS A M. tho Privv Couniil all but irretrievably fell. Merlin and 
Favard do Langlade .are alwo perfectly clear on the point. 
In fact it is difficult to understand how any one could 
have copied oxtractM from thcKc prcicise writers without 
Hcoing that they were cxpoKing a d<'linite, and to some 
degree an arbitrary rub-, and not j^^laying with theories." 

In England there are no legal writers* on this 8ubj«?rt, 
for there is no legal distinction between the two imposts,' 
and the economists use the terms direct and ijy,^rect 
rather to describe the incidence of the impost, which is 
often .influeneed by cir«'umstan«es over which the legis- 
lature has no control, and. which it does not even con- 
template, than to define terms or to make an abstract 
classification. Mr. Dudley Baxter admits this:— "One 
of the oldest and most simple definitions divides all 
taxes into the two heads pf direct and indirect taxation ; 
dir(H"t taxes being those which are paid by the person 
himself, who is meant to be the real contributory, such as 
assessed taxes, and indirect being those which are paid 
by an intermediary, who re-imburses himself from the 
real contributor, such as the customs and excise duties. 
But this definition cannot furnish us with a trustworthy 
classification, since it is founded upon an accident in the 
manner of payment and not upon the natu1"e of the taxes 
themselves. The income and property tax, for instance, 
is' direct taxation when paid by the owner himself, and 
indirect when paid by the tenant or mortgagor." Ti 
Taxation of the Kingdom : R. Dudley Baxter, page 2'0. 
It is otherwise in the United States and Fratnce, and sflso 
here. By the constitution of the United States a direct 
tax is imposed differently from an indirect one. A/rt. 1, 
sec. 9, par. 4. Hence the courts have been called/ upon 
to designate the classes in order to decide whether the 
impost isrieg^i-or not. In France the question comes 
before the courts in diametrically the reverse way, for 
there a tax becomes direct or indirect, not by any quality 
in the nature of the tax, but by the mode of its imposition. 
In France it is not a question of expenditure or recoup- 





" ?'- 




'■ f 




.. ■■■; .■, *■■■ ■.■ ^ 


'","; ' 




\ , -■*— 


■.,tv ■ 


\r 


\ ■ ; ■ • ' .'. .- :^ 


|M; : 






k 


' ? 





COURT OP QUEENS BENCH. 



116 



\mii. 



Inn. C<>. 

& 
Lambe. 



ment, but whether the tax is on the person or on a pro- 
<|u<t."Thu8 tho, taxes on industries (patenlas) aro all direct, '"*^,^-j['-,ffM. 
while the tax on theatre tickets is indirect.. After saying '" 
what is quoted by Taschereau, J., p. 421. Say goes on to 
I'stablish the real distinction in Kranco^ p. r>22 :' ' a 

'•I'onramwirlcH.-ontril)ntion8-(lir«cU«J on-projiortion durovonu do8 ' 
contribiiabloH^ taiitot Ics fjouvornoiiUMifs cxunmt don partictilio^s roxluhi- 
tioii do lonrs baux, otc, ot doinan.lont an i,ropri(-tairo nno part do co 
revonu ; c'ost'la contribution foncioro. 

"TantAt ils jiiK«nt dii rovonii par lo ioyor .lo I'liabitation .,no I'on • 
oocnjKi, par I« noniI.ro do8 donioati.iuoH, di« d.cvanx, d(« voituros cin'on 
OMtrotiont, ot font do .ott.^ .'vnUiation la base do Uuirs domand»« : cvil .o 
ijiion nomniocn I'ranco la rontril.ntion mobilKm 

" Tant6t lis estiniont los profits .pio IVm jwit fairo Huivant I'oHpCco d'in- 
.lustrio qno IV.n oxcr«s IVtandiio do la villo otdu hw.a] ort olio ml exorcA) • 
.: wt la bast) do I'inipi'.t (luon appollo on Franco les patontes. 

"Toutos <.C8 manicroH d'assooir ri,n,y\t, on font .Ioh contrrbntions ' 

'• Ponr assooir lo8 contributionH indirectes et cellos dent on vont frai)- 
per loH consommatlons, on no s'infornie pa« du nom dn rodovablo : on ne ^ 

8 attacbc <,u a.i produit. Tantot. dt« IV.rijjino do .-o produit on T^;lan.o 
uncypart .,uolcon.,no (fc sa valonr, rommo on fait on l-ranct) pour le sol. 

1 ant6t retto deJnando iSt/aito an loomont oix le produit francbit les 
fr(|^tiCires (los droits do doUanos) ou I'oncointo dos villes (I'octroi) 

' Tantat Cost an moment oil lo prfxluit passe- do la main du dernier 
proiluctaur dans c-ollo du><1nsonnnato,ir, .,u'on fait .ontribuor celui^i 
(on Angletern. par WMamp d„t,i, m Fran.e par Yixnpt^t sur los billets de 
spectacles). I , 

"Tant6tloKouvornemehtexigequela amrcbandise porte une marque 
partK-uhiire ,,u il fait payor, commo le controle de I'aVgent, le timbre des 
joiirnaux. 

"TantAt il s'omparede la pr<iparation oxclnsivo d'une niarchandise. ou 

.1 nn service public, ot los v^^ a un prix monopoly, comme le tabac ou le 
transi)ort des lettres par la/poste. 

"Tantat il frapp^ non la marchandise ello-m<!me, mai» I'acquittement 
do son prix, comme il le fait par le timbre des quittances et des effeta de 
commerca a?' « uo 

" Toutos ces maniSi^Bs do lever les ,co,itribntions les rangent dans la 
classe des Milmllom /m/«c<<,,pl&ce'.iuo la domande n'en est adre8S<5e A 
personne directoir,ent, mais au protluit, & la marcliandise frappfe de I'im- 

' [Note de I'auteur.] " Et non parce qij'elles atteignent indirectement , t 

lecontribuablo; car, St ellestiraiont lour denomination de cette dernitire - 
cmonstanco, il fq^rait dOnner le mdme4iom A des contributions ires 
diroetcs, comme, ^r exemplfe, A l'imp6t dos patontes, qui tombe en mrtie ^ 
indirectement sur le consommateur des produits doiits'occupelifpatente." 



> . 




m 








f^' 



in* 



178 



MONTBEAT- LAW REPORm 



1886 

The N. 



Tht 




•'J!» 



WuL 




■.•» 






^ * 



similarity of the syHtems and the unanimity of 
' writers on the eubject, jfcnerally speaking, is the wild«>Kt 
deliisiou, it appears to me ; but there is one point com- 
mon to the le<:ral systems existing in VVance and in tli*; 
United States, not unimportant to us, which, curious to 
say, has escaped the notice oi" our economist jurists. The 
common principle to \vhi«'h 1 rel'er is this, that the divi- 
sion betwet'U direct and indirect taxation is necessarily 
arbitrary. In France it is iormally, and in the United 
States practically so. In the case of//y/Aw v. 77ie United 
Sfntes, Hamilton attempted <to lay down a s(;ientific basis 
for the distinction, but Chase, J., was not misled eithoj- 
by the (iloquence or the i^iifenuity of that distinguished 
advocate, and he expressed the opinion that, within the 
meaning of the constitution, a direct tax was on the per- 
son and on land, and perhaps, on revenue. This has since 
been confirmed in Springer v. United^ Slates (102 U. S) 
Reports), from which we Ic^arn that Hamilton's opinion 
was really in favour of the judgment in the Hylton case. 
Now with us there is i^o. doubt that a tai on revenue is 
of the same nature as a tax on land, and consequently 
if the one is direct taxation so is the other. 

At the argument a strange proposition was advanced,^ 
^lamel^, that a poll'tax is not a direct tax unless it is 
general'. It is Mill who says that if a tax is not general * 
it may be avoided, and therefore it is not direct taxation. 
His reasoning is, that if you tax carpenters and not 
masons, the carpenters may all become masons. We 
need not inquire, fortunately for us, how this accords 
with the consumer argument already mentiohed,|!«but 
what he says only illustrates jnore fully what I have 
adverted io already, that the English economists are 
not dealing with a term but are speculating on results 
which the terms direct arid indirect dp, hot express 
adeqtiately ; and that if we were to be guided by what 
they say, there would be no means of arriving at a cou' 
elusion as to what constitutes direct taxation, 'and we 
should, therefore, be obliged to say that there was no 
such thing. By a similar process of reasoning, we could 




«*:" 

m- 



COURT OF QUEilir'8 BENCH, 



M* 



m 



iff». 



iiii. do. 

lAmba* 



moro oMily arrive at the conclnsion that there was no «•» 
«u,h thing as indirect taxation, and by a little develop- ''taN".*M. 
mont of th,8 plastic logic we might perhaps arrive at the ' - 
happy delusion that we are not taxed at all. The passage 

It is only too- clear that there is no scientific distinction 
ktween direct and indfrect taxation, even, if we might 
properly consult scientific books to learn the:value of tt^h- 
incal terms. But without the aid of the writers onpolitical 
.•cdnomy wo must define it. as it has become a law term 
w.th us^ . J am not aware that thero is any reason for me 
^.nodify what I said in Angers v. The Queen Insurance 
Co. with regard to this matter, for although the late 
Master of the Rolls, in giving the Judginent of the Privy 
Council, seemed to be influenced to some extent bv the 
apparent unanimity of the writers, he very guardedly 
decided that ^^such a stamp imposed by the legislature I 

l^f r.K"!-^'"" /* ^"^« "" ^'^'""^'y i° conforming 
myself to this du^tum. It is precisely what we all held here 

With regard to the other question decided in that case' 
namely, whether license or not. it does not arise in tkh 

case. * " 

%iherefore come tHhe first point we have to decide 
the tax now m question is within the ruling of 
fjr« f tM"^?:*-/" ^^^ ^'*'^'^' Go. or not, and 

'' On^t^ first part of th^^question there is hardly room - 
for a difference ^f opinion. In the former case the tax 
was levied on anyone who might insure^'The present ' 
tex IS on every Canadian bank. &c.. doing:jUines8 in the 
Province of Quebec, and the measure oflE^karge is the 
paid-up capital of the bank. Thefe is^^lso a Lsines^tax , 
At the argument the contention that^e^tax was not 
direct seemed ultimately to be confihed to the considera- 
tion that It was not^ tax on property within the province 
or on the property of persons residing in the province, or 
'vo^rQ.T^'"^' **''* ^^^ was a tax on>e 



,{ii 



^.'^ 



T 







lis 



MONTRKATi LAW REPORTS. 



IMA- 



1*.> 



ini. Co. 

A 
liHinbe. 




Rir- 



^#11 



f. . 






franchise. I pMsume that a tax on the franchise moans 
TheN.B.j^^.M.j^ ^^j on those privilegoB which go to make up the corpor- 
ation, and consequently it is a tax on the person. If Ihe 
position bo (correct that any tax on the person, his pro- 
perty or his revenue is direct taxation, in the moaning of 
the B. N. A. Act (and there is no decision contravening it), ' 
then a tax on the franchise of a corporation is a ditcHjt 
tax, foT'a corporation is a person. The law of this pro- 
vince lays down in express terms that "every corporation 
legally <onstituted is an artificial or ideal person * * 
enjoying pertain rights and liable to certain obligations 
(862 C. Xf ). They are also subject to certain disabilities 
(864 C. C). I understand that these articles express 
correctly the law of England on this subject as well as 
our law. Smith's Mercantile Law, chap. 4. There is 
certainly nothing in our law which could possibly suggest, 
the idea that a corporation might not be made liable to a 
/ personal tax, and assuming the law of England to be 
the same, I am forced to the conclusion that a tax on the 
person, or on the franc^hise of a corporation, is no excep- 
tion to the general rule of sub-sect. 2, sect. 92. Oftcourse in 
"the United States a tax on the franchise could not be 
direct taxation within their constitution ; because it could 
not 1^ adjusted according to the census. And this explains 
- the case- of the Bank of Commerce v. Nm York Citi/; (2 
Black, 628), and also, I presume, the case mentioned by 
Hilliard (Law of Taxation, ch. l.^ar. 36, p. 20), reported 36 
Conn. (512-528), i^hich I have not seen. What I under- 
stand to belaid down by these cases is this : — A tax on 
nominal value is not a tax on property, for evidently 
since the tax is imposed on the nominal value its quality 
as property is disregarded ; it is therefore a tax on the 
franchise which cannot be adjusted. But, said Mr. Justice 
Nelson, a tax on the estimated value is at 'tax upon pro- 
perty, and consequently is direct taxation. As to the tax 
in question not being a tax on property, the statujte (45 
Vic, c. 22, Q.) does not impose it as a tax on property, but 
as a tax on banks, &c., carrying on business in. the pro- 
vince. Then by section 3 it regulates how ^ach of these 



■■''■■ r'-i 



« 



COURT OF QUEENTS BENCH, 



119 



* 



■.\ 



.doal persoTiB shall be charged. Here it is necesaar^ to !«««• 
diHtiuffuish the cases, and Hrst I shall deal with bank %. n. ... * m. 
Th..y are to pay not on the nominal value of their capitaR ^-* '• 
hut on their paid-u^^ (Capital. Now. if it be maintained^ 
that th.H tax IS not a trfx on the person, I do not see how 
.t.an bo maintained that it is not a tax on property. 
There is nothmg in our constitfution which declares anv- 
thinj? as to uniformity of taxation, and, therefore, it is no 
legal objection to a tax that it is not levied upon anv 
general system of valuation. The power to assess .being 
admitted, its measure is a matter of discretion, subject to 
the power of disallowance by the Dominion government 
It 18 not a legal question. • * 

The next point is, that it was not taxation of persons 
within the jurisdiction of the legislature of Quebec. This 
diffai.ulty does not appear to me to be formidable. The 
persons taxfed are not the shareholders but the banks or 
other corporations. The shareholder is never by law con- 
founded^ with the ideal person, so he can sue the corpo- 
ration like any other stranger. Smith's Mercantile Law 
toe. mt. There is nothing in paragraph 2, section 92, to 
confine the tax to persons domiciled in the province. 
What the statute says is, that the taxation must t^e within 
the province, or. in other worfls, that the provincial gov- 
ernment cannot execute its laws bey;,nd its iuris^ictlon. 
ft scarcely requigd the words " within the p^ri,vince " to 
establish this. Hilliard (chap. 1, par. 6. page 6) says :i 

"II T"'*^ l"**^'' * * is necessarily limited to\ 
subjects within the jurisdiction of the state. These sub- \ 
jects are persons, property and business." The statute 
does not propose to tax persons outside the province, but 
persons carrying on business within it and benefiting by 
te organization and government. It is an evident error 
to say thAt a person is only liable to the laws of his domi- 

^t 7 f *' ^^ ™*y '^''^^ ^»^««^f personally liable 
to the laws of many countries without ever leaving the 
^^eof his birth.^ A Frenchman, who has neverlen 
jat of Pans might become liable to a business tax in 
Montreal, and I dare say that such an impost could be 



3 .-» 



# 



J.'f V 



180 



MONTREAL LAW REPOBtS. 



Th» 



IHM. 4» 

N. II. A 
Ini. Co. 

A 
liumM. 




.■■f'i. 



.;^ 






. "-4^ 



colloctod, a8 any other debt, in the Prorich couTta. If an 
^- individual Ik? thus liable why should a corporation e8(up<» 
a similar liability ? . ,\ 

The last point is that the property is not within tho 
province. This dilFKiulty is more HubHtrtntial, and il" the 
tax were not also perHonal I woiild be inclined to think 
it valid^ as regards banks not having th«5ir domicile iir 
Quobec/unless it were.shown thatthtjir stock was.thore; 
but as I have already said the t§x apiwars to mo to he 
pergonal and to be of tlie most direct kind, and therefore 
the question does not atl'ect the (^ases l)efore us. As to 
those having their principal place of business in the Pro- 
vince of Quoboe, the question could not arise on any sup- 
position. .... 

Again, as to the argument that a business tax is not 
direct, I see nothing in that either in principle or in 
practice. It is notoriously false in principle that a tax 
on a profession or on a trade or on .wages necessarily 
comes out of the pocket of the employer or tho consumt^r. 
It stands on the same footing as a tax on profits, fisxi pro- 
fits are income, and a tax on income is direct taxation. 
See Say, Cours d'Economie Politique, T. 5, p. 420, where 
the result of taxing industries and wages is clearly 
treated. It will be observed that there are two distinct 
taxes on the banks, one on the person Or on the franchise ; 
the other a purely businesl^ tax. The taxes on insurance 
companies are purely business taxes. Incorporated com- 
panies for carryiiig on some trade, etc., are charged with 
a personal tax to bp increased according to the amount of 
p^id up capital oyor $250,000 and an additional tax for 
each place^f^siness. These cover all the descriptions 
of cprpbrations that have come before this court, 
^adT I think all the taxes they complain of are within 
the category of direct taxation. I have not relt;rred 
to the question of excise, although Mr. Justice Tasche- 
reau, the ingenious originator of the numerous fal- 
lacies I feel myself called upon to combat, has drawn 
it into the medley. His error here is very easy of exposi- 
tion. He has written on ^mutilated tezt, at least as it i» 



Mu 



COURT OF QUEEN'S B£N(1I. 



181 



given in Oartwright, p. 141. The ftill text of what Whar- i« 
ton Httys i« thiH: " Exci<i«, the name given to the duties "fH?,;:!',.*; 
• or taxes laid on <H,rtain urti,,l«« jm^duced and mummed at ^J^ 



home: but exiJusive of these, the duties on Hcenses 
"aui^tioneerHandpost-hbrsesare also placed under the. 
" manag(,mont of the i^xrise, and are eonsequently includ- " 
\ed m the ex.^ise duties.'-Wharton's Law Loxi.on vo. 
Excise. To bring Mr. Justice Taschereau's logic into line 
we should have to say: Excise duties are direct taxes; 
ct-rtain duties not excise are <ollected by the exciseman. 
Therefore they are direct taxes. Really the functions of 
theguager. as he was irteverently called formerly, owing 
to the ordinary operations of his calling, have been extend- 
ed; but that does not alter the nature of direct taxation 
nor the meaning of the t»^rm in the B. N. A Act The 
argfument of the learned Chief Justice differs notably from 
tbttt of Mr. Justice Tascheroau. He does not go on the 
strict deanition of excise ; but he says, in legislation 
excise has been made to include assessed taxes. Therefore 
we must presume that exciai^ in the contemplation of 
Parliament, includes all these kxes. If it had been our 
business to interpret the word excise, it might perhaps 
.Imve been a consideration for us whether excise meant 
all the taxes collected by the exciseman. But the Act 
does not use the word "excise," except in a transitory 
clause, section 102, for certain ta^es then imposed. It is 
not aMged to the general power of taxation. It is th 
econoilists who say that excise duties are not direct tax 
because th^y are similar to customs duties. To make it a 
rale of interpretaticm. that because a partfJ^Star word was 
used m a special sense in one statute, it should have the 
same mterpretatdon in Other statutes, having So relation 
to the same subject, would be the surest way of mistaking 
the intention of the legislature th^t ^Id Wdevi^d. 

There is another yieiJir of this case^hich, it appears to 
me, merits closer atteiltib^ thacn it has received, and that 
w whether the B. N. A. Act has limited the local powers 
of taxation to "direct taxation withii^.the province in 
order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes " 



tMBiM. 



«, 



^■' 



k 






.:,.j. 



1 t- 



.,f 






.■*• 



'7^ 



If ^S^' 



w> 



rr, 



V ■., 



I M' 



J*? 



It 

I' M 



182 
and 



MONTRKAL LAW RRWBTR. 



UmiIm. 



:\ 



to "ihop, etc., and other lioenneB, in order to th*- 
'■'p'i^jHf,,*'* raining of u revenue for provin<;ial, loral, or munioipiil 
'"•*'" purpoH«8," and thin to the exclunion of every other form of 
taxatio;i. This enquiry demnndii an extended examination ^ 
of the general H«ope or Hchenie of the B. N. A. Act. It has 
been Haid the local legiNlatureM are not supreme leginla- 
turcH. From a purely abHtra«t point of view, no legis- 
lature iH Hiipreme. In oth«*r wordH, there ore limitM to 
JuriHdIbtion, which are not ideuti<;al with the physit^al 
IK)wer to oxeiute. Public law iH imperfe<;t in this, that it 
has ^o constitutional power of execution ; neverthelesH it 
exproHHCH a right. When De Hardenberg exclaimed at the , 
Council of Vienna : " Que fait id te droit public ? " Talley- 
rand replied : " It fail i/ue vous y ites." Again, jurisdiction 
ha« moral limits, for it has no authority over conscien«;e. 
Al^i to this limit is the non-assent of the subject, and ko 
la^s become obsolete. It is only, then, relatively, that 
we call speak of a suprem6 legislature. Thus restricted, 
the Parliament of the United Kingdom is supreme as 
regards all the Queen's dominions. By force of that 
suprema(;y it granted the constitution to Canada set forth 
in the B. N. A. Act, 1867, and by the same power it bus 
amended that Act. By the Act of 1807 and its amend- 
menttr it has divided the powers of legislation between a 
ft'derul legislature and local legislatures, in very diller- 
ent proportions. It is admitted that the local legislatures 
are as omniiwteut within the scope of their legislativo 
powers OS the Dominion parliament is within its powers. 
It does not, however, follow from this that the federal 
organization has no supremacy over the local. Such a 
pretension would be utterly untenable, for the federal 
power, alone, has the power to nominate one of the brimches 
of the local legislature, it can disallow its act^, it can turn 
local works into federal works, and it can create new pro- 
vinces. The true doctrine seems to me to be thi8,^hat the 
federal power is not generally supreme relatively ^ the 
local power. Its supremacy consists in its power to^- 
fluence indirectly the action of the local power, or to pararx 
lyse it to some efxtent, not in the power to destroy it. An 



OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



188 



iiidimt attempt to <loiitroy it would therefore be uucon- "» 
HtitutioiiaUiid unlawM. It ih like wiite generally admitted, ■"'m ^IjAM. 
lut haH heeii aln)a<ly wiid, that the powera of the lo<:al le|;pn- ^'J^' 
luluroM are enumerated in th.f rouMtitutional acts, and by 
purity of reasoning it cannot be denied that the iiowero of 
the Dominion are aliio to be found there. Giving ftiU 
eHe<!t to this principle, it must not, however, be supposed 
that it iraplieN that all the iwwers given by the ronstitu- 
tioaalactH either to the Dominion parliament or to iho 
lo. Ill legislatureM are specially enumerated. The general 
power given to the Queen, senate' and house of commons' 
Ib "to make laws for the p«?ace, order and good govern- 
" meat of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming 
" within the (^lasseH of subjects by this act assigned exclu- 
■ Hively to the legislatures of the provinces. " Rut among 
the matters coming within the classes of subjects assigned 
exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces there are 
alHO general powers of legislation. They make laws as to 
"all matters of a merely local or private nature in the 
" province." Does this not embrace local taxation for local 
objects ? And if not, why ? There can be no question, I 
thidc, that taxation is a necessary attribute of govern- 
ment. A government that cannot tax would be a nullity, 
and the fact is that it is a power conferred in some degree 
or other on the most insignificant municipality in the 
country. They can impose property and incx)me taxes, 
insurance taxes of all sorts and a poll tax. The general 
power to tax to. any extent has always been recognized in 
the United States as an attribute of sovereignty, an^b^ 
don't tliink there can be^-any English authority fojPP 
to contradict this proposition. "The power of congress 
" to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatso- 
"ever within the district of t^olumbia includes the 
" power of taxing it, " loughborough Sf Blake (6 Wheaton, 
817). " The power of taxing is essential to the very 
" existence of government." 4 Wheaton, 428. This tax- 
ing power is an essential attribute of sovereignty, and 
rtmonly be abridged by positive legisktive enactment, 
clearly expressed. The power is not affected by a char- 






i w 





y 



.N* 



184 



MONTRKAL LAW HKFORm 



fl!r^ 



IMA. 



TI|«iN.«.* M 
Ilia. Cii. 



k 
LiimImi 



J . 



L 



t 



ti>r whiih U iiiloiit on tho subjtwt." IltlliHrd, liaflr bt' 
tuxittioti, rh. I, |)ar. HA, p. 40. In «nMw«r to a c|ut«iio|i I 
put at thi* <A^vim«>nt utM>n thin point, Mr 'MiuUron Niii<l 
thiit Hub-m'otiohr'i unU \\ iMHt^*tt'i, vvern inipliudly u tlt«ul- 
ing with thi» wholo qucNtion of thf taxi;ig i»ow«r, for if 
thfl lo<*nI li>giHliitiir«>N hnd full powvn to tAi, tKoM tw» 
Mub-MutionN would hi* vt'' boon u^nucoiwary, am|[^thurofori>, 
th« i»ow(«p to tax indirtM-tly in impUfHlly tiffeoii RWiiy 
ThiM IN u vory iuguniouH urguniunt, and tho bent, I fan* y, 
whioh can Ih) put forwurd, but I don't think it HatiM(fM;tory. 
Ii) th<*\HrNt pilule the rule of intorprotation imiufio unm, 
ejxluxM a/tmus iH ono of tho foebloMt of tho rulvs of inter- 
pri'tation, if it can bo «;all«>d a rulo at all. Tho real rule iit 
thus etproNHcd by Pothior, No. 100: '* liorsquo dann uii 
" contrat on a exprimfe un ca«; pour lo douto qu'il aurait 
" pu y avoir, si . rougagemont qui roNulte du. contrat 
" s'C'tondait h «o oaw, on n'oBt pas i^nni par Id avoir -vouhi 
"rostroindro I'fetonduo quo'oot o<magomont a d« drpit,'A 
" tons ooux qui no «ont pan oxprimoH." It ia a rule of the 
Itoniau l^w : " (Jujy duhituj^oniH tellundti) caijHa, contnu- 
'* tibuH iiifuruntur, juh ooinmuntf'non Iwdunt." L. 81, Diff. 
do rogujiH .Tup. ; L. 56, Maud. I find it uqually imper- 
aH-voly oxprosBod in tho Englinh law. Ooko sayB : " It ih 
" a maxim of tho «;ommon law that a Htatute mado in the 
"aiiirmativu, without any nugativu expressed or .impliod, 
"doth not takeaway tho common law." And Lord Hathor- 
ley, Humminji? up tho opinion of Mr. Justice filu:bkbnrn in 
Ashhnrif R. Car anil Iron Go. v. Riche, says : " Then he (Mr. 
"Justito BlackbuM) cites from- old authorities to show 
" tha^ju^^tm once^ou have given being to suqh a body as 
•' this, youHtwsHtte taken to have given to it all the con- 
" seqm'nces of its being called into existence, unless by 
*' exprewi negative words, you have restricted the opera- 
•' tion ol ihe actH of the body you have so created." L. R., 
7 II. L. 08.7\ There are numerous tases supporting this 
doctrine in different ways. For instance, thit distinction 
has been made between using words that are unneces- 
sary an4>nsing words that are unmiaauing; the. former is 
readily supposed, the latter is never preaQm94-—'-^t«^' 

« ■' . 



\\y's 



COURT or xaiJJSEIfB BENCH. 



186 



IniA. 



l«m>M 



lemrdar v. /^r/ Kmmmll, fl ('. ft p. 686. VfoulB that ar... 
.i.tru5tly ■iH^iiHitig. unuwcuniinry may b.« u»oA0xm^^crtm-^'*l\jJ^' 
Ha Dkkt of Ntu,m»tle ,\ Itforrii, U R., 14 H. L 662 • ^j^"- 
Frvn ^ Morlaml, W It.. 8 C!h. Dir. 685 ..That ii pmi«..ly 
what, r thihk, wu« dom* in thin Act. th« rij^ht to tai; tho 
IM«rhon Illicit hav«« Immui quoationod' with muoh gnrntor 
forr.* tjiaii th« right to tax iiu^mtly, if nothing had b..«n 
Hai«l lk'aid«a thin, th«r« ia a limitation in both mib-a.Mi. 
tiona. Sub-H«rtion 2 allowi* ex(IuBiv«ly dire<;t t&tation in 
ordor to fh« raining a nvonu.^ for provin.iaJ pur^oa«ii, and 
motion 9 authoriavH bgialation aa to rorlain iiconH«!H in or-, 
der to th« raising a r«v<muo for prov.lndal, local or munici-, 
pal purjK)Hi.B. In th^> third pla^o it is, at all events, not an 
."xpross .ncnlusion of tho grnnral i^wor to t»:<. which 
Be^ms to be un inhormit right of govornment ; and innhtf 
lourth plac«, sub-amtion 10 cov.«r« any ominsion of th« 
Hort. To this I may add thit if tho argmnonts roferred to 
wore good in thin cajJe, the local b.gi«latiwes coul^ not 
l.'k«Nlate an to shops, saloonw or tavernn i«t-all/except in 
r.'>?ard to liconseH, in order to raisi! revenue. This ban 
iiovjr bt^en pretended, and Hodge ^ ^e Qneen in an auth- 
ority to shaw that such a pn^tention would not ho main- 
tainied, for what the legislatureof Ontario did was, to create 
license commissioners with power to pass resolutions V 
• lose tavt^rns and billiard rooms at (^ertaiA hours. In 6ltmm 
v^ m CorjH>ratu>H of Quebec:, 1 Q. L. R. 18, ChieK^ustice 
Meredith gave & similar decision, as also a%ie cibe of>b«. 
lin V. The Cotporation of (Quebec, 7 Q. L. R. 88t. The latter 
cu8e was confined ptf appeal to this court, and also by the 
Supre.me court, /^ 

One other argument has been put forward, with some 
plausibility, to show that parliament never intended to 
give the local legislatures the right to tax indirectly. It 
was said that certain -speakers in Canada, wWsppke on 
the resolutions, had expressed thg idea that the local gov- 
ernments were to live on direct taxation and on the federal 
subsidy. It is very true that in France commeritntors allow 
themselves great latitude in referring to the history of the 
code ; but the discussions in the council of ststi^and in the 
-. • '^jS. _ • , _ 

^* . . . ^ 



\ 




P 



t?~ 



1^ —■< - 



'^1 



>v. 




■i. 




186 



MONTREAL LAW REFOBm 



MM. 







1 



1 





4 


•k 


4-r 




:<■' 


t 


¥■ 


f> 


1 . 


4 




m 






! V 

1 


: 1 : 








1 l- • 




i 





■••- 



..^; 



tribune we1r» of a very difTerent kind from tho diBimssionH 
""^ "J^jjf,**- of a popular body like tho houBo of^assombly ; and I am 
jk 'not awaro that any weight is attachi^ in Frant;e to tho 
opinions V individual, membors of the aMHomb^ly- Nothing, 
howover, Ih hviiUir «>HtabliHhod in England tht^i this, that 
th(^ deb^teN in parliament are not authority as th the inter- 
pretation of statutes. The cases are systematically Wrangud 
in IHr. Hardcastle's very carefully prepared treatise N)n the 
donstniction and effec^t of Statutory Law, p. !i5. If tiiero 
be any difference between the French and English law tin 
this point, which ^ I am' inclined to doubt, we must, of^ 
course, reject the French rule. In referring to the acts of 
the legislature we express almost an excessive deference 
for the«i ; but we compensate oursel ve^for this lip-loyalty 
to the words of the statute, by disregarding totally the 
sayinlgs of the individual legislator. 

This line of argument necessarily leads us to examim; 
the- rules as to the iuteipretation of statutes, and to a short 
digression in order to ascertain thu fundamental principles 
upon which the right to tax restEt^' if it exists at all. The 
difficulty of .these rules appears to me to be a good deal 
overrated. Their sitinplicity is so great the bookmakers 
can hardly find materials to make books about them. A 
statute, according to our ordinary tise of the word, is 9a 
act of the legislature. Its dispositions are either clearly 
enounced or .their terms tire ambiguous. In the former, 
case they are -to be applied according to their terms, the 
langpiage being taken to have the meaning popularly - 
attached to it. In delivering the judgment of the Privy 
Council in McConnel 4- Murphy, L. R., 6 P.C.,.i^' 218, Sir 
Montaigue Smith said: "In merciintile contracts, and 
'^ indeed in all contracts where the meaning of language 
" is to be determined by the court, the governing principle 
" must be to ascertain the intention of the parties, through 
"th« word^they have used. This principle is one of uni- 
"veijBal wplication. " • If the terms afgf ambiguous for 
any cjiill,^ whether ij; be from a vice of construction of a 
particular section, or from contradiction, in the provisions 
of the statute, or fyoQi iuconipatibility w^h the general / 



■*,"-■» 



• \ 



lM:iik, 




COURT OP QUE 




' ■^'^'T'i'' 



BENCa 



18Y 







meaning of the act, or because literal application wouM '»»• 
I«ad to an abBurd conclusion as yit^nld frustrate the pur- "^j^ ^.^l*^ 
poses of the a<5t, then interpretaijion begins, anti it is ^*J^ 
sought thereby to arrive at the true Jntention of theiogis- **"** 
lature. It is not a question of addinjy to or taking away 
from the act ; but deciding what the uct really moans. There 
are a few legislative rules as to tho mo^e of dealing with 
Huch difficulties ; and also certain rules, derived from ex- 
perience and reasoning, have been laid dWn as general 
guides in such matters ; but the latter leaV^lnuch )o the 

discretion of the judges, because their delimitation is scarce- 
ly more extensive than each parti(rular case. I think, how- 
ever, it may be said, generally speaking, that in the inter- • ^ 
pretation of a statute iiMftba similar to those whiqh guide 
us as to the intention of parties, in the absence of .express 
declarations as to their intention, are applicable. ,Lord 
Blackburn has explained, with his usual breadth and 
precision, ho^ the courts of law act in construing instru- 
ments in writing. Ho says : " a statute is an instrument 
"in writing. In all cases the object is to see what is the 
"intention expressed by the words useld. But, from the 
"imperfection of language, it is impossible to know what 
"that intention is without inquiring further ; and seeing 
what the circi^stances were with reference to which 
"tpwordffwere used, and what was the object appear- 
"ing from those circumstances which the person using 
"them had in view." River Wear v. Adatnson, L. R., 2 
App. Cas. 16Z. Apother very great authority, Mr. Justice 
Hannen, has said: "I agree with Mr. Thesiger that an' 
'appeal can only begiven by the clearly expressed inten- 
* tion of the legislature. This must be ascertained by an 
"examination of the enactment which is the subject of 
" enquiry. It is not necessary that there should be any 
"particular form of words, but at is essential that an 
" intention to give an appeal should clearly appear." * * 
"The authorities that have been cited have not much 
I' bearing upon this question, because in all cases the 
" intention of Ihe legislature must depend to a great extent 
" upon the particular object of the statute that has to be 



f 4 




H 








I 



4 



188 



MONTREAL LA^ RETOBTBL 



\ 



th\ 




Th«N 



V 



-iv 






%: 



1 

1- 



MM. "constraod. I have come to the conclasion that th^ legis- 
i^pf jiffs'' " Ic^^iiru intended to givt^ an appeal in a case like the pn^- 
^■'^ " Bent." L. II., Q. B. vol. 6, p. 98. 'i%« Queen v. Justices of 
Surrey. 

Taking these authorities as expressing the general tqIoh 
for the int(>rpretation of statutcH, and whii^h seem to be 
ideuti<al with those whi^h obtain in France (see if. M. 
Procureur Sf Brumau, L. R., 1 P. 0. 191), it can scarcely 
be questioned that the preamble of an at^t is greatly to be 
considered in determining the intention of the legislature 
where there is any doubt uh to .the meaning of its terms. 
See also Menoch. de praesump. L. vi., Pra^s. 2, Nos. 2, 8, 4;/ 
and Gomyns in his Dig. Vbo. Parliament, says : — " The? 
"preamble is a good means for collecting the intent.'/ 

Now, if we come to the preamble of the B.N. A. Act, 
1867, we find the objects qf the statute generally declared. 
The third paragraph is in these words : — " And whereas 
on the establishment of the Union by authority of parlia- 
ment', it is expedient' not only that the constitution of the 
legislative authority in the Dominion be provided for, 
but also that the nature of the Executive government 
therein be declared."- The Act then goes on to prescribe 
of what the executive of the central government shall 
consist, after that of what the legislature, called parlia- 
ment, shall consist. It then follows the same form of 
legislation for the lo(;al constitutions. 

It would seem then beyond question th^t this A<-t 
attributes plenary governmental powers with regard to 
certain matters to both the federal and local bodies, and 
so far as I know this has never been doubted. "We have 
therefore one point settled. The local organization^ are 
governments. They enjoy regalian powers, and all the 
incidents of such pow^; and t^ese powers have not 
been limited by the charter, w^ich, although it has 
specially passed on the taxing^ power, has been silent 
as to the powers of indirect taxation. To the last part of 
this argmnent, that is to say, that the right to tax gener- 
ally has not been expressly taken avray, it has been said 
that by sub-seotion 8, section 91, " The exclusive anthor- 






tk< 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 




189 



\j 



IMS. 



L«mb«. 



it'y of the parliament of Canada extends tO' th j%&ing of 
money by any m^^e or syHtem of taxation, " und |t m furtlior "^.IJ Mj*- 
provided that " aiiy matter coming ^^ithita any of the '" * 
"classes of subjects enumt^ratod in this soc^tion (i, e., sec- 
" tion 1)1, pf which taxation is ou«) shall not be deemed 
"to come within the class of matters of a local or private 
"nature comprised in the enumeration of classes of sub- 
"jects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures 
" of the provinces," and that this is an express and not an 
iihplied taking away of the general right to tax. This is 
a formidable position. To the federal parliament exclu- 
sive authority is attributed, and the exclusiveness so given 
Overrides even the declaration atttibuting exclusive 
power to the local legislatures. That is, the exclusive 
power 6f the .former is absolute, that of t^e latter is sub- 
ject to the condition that it shall not c^ash.with the 
former. It is not easy to conceive words nkore clear than 
tho^e of the B. N. A. Ac| to express thiaid^ nevertheless 
it has been universally atdinitted that this interpretation 
cannot be put upon the statute. In the /case of L' Union 
St. Jacques V. Beliak, L. Ri, 6 P. 0>«1, decided in 18Y4, Lord 
Selborpe explained the necessity of reconciling the two 
enumerations. In 187V, in the case /of Anger$ v. TTke 
Qu£en Insurance Co., 3 H. of L. and P. Ci/oQO ; 1 Leg. News, 
410, I drew attention to this necessity, in these words : 
—"It would be a defensible position to say that the 
" proviso of section 91 so controlled sub-sections 2 and 9 
" of section 92 as to render them inapplicable, ^though 
" I do not think this was the intention of the Imperial 
" parliament. But the majority of the court does not adopt 
"that view. * * The whole that Ite judgment about 
" to be rendered affirms is, that the particular mode of 
" levying a, license adopted in the statute before us is 
"beyond the powers of the local legislature" (I Cart- 
Wright, 181), and as I have already shown, it is that alone 
the Privy Council held in confirming the judgment of 
this court. {lb.) They therefore impliedly rejected the 
short way out of the difficulty now suggested, as inad- 
missible. 



m 



M 




>i! ' 



■i\ 



«^i! ti< 









A. 



190 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



1 1 l^i: 



"»' Later, in 1880, in tho caw of Ditbie v. The TmporalUm 

"TSpfrffc**' ^^rd, 1 H. L and P. C, 1H6 ; 6 I^g. N«wb, 68, I «r«a««l 
%''^' that miotion 92 must be ruad with stn^tion 01, ho aa to mod- 
'*'"'* ify the gflnorality of aub-siwtiojti " 18 Property and civil 
rights in th« province." The judgment of thia court wa« 
rinM^raod in the Monan of the diaaeut, and no disapprobation 
ot this doctrine was expressed. The following year tht> 
Privy Council in the case of tho Qu^n Ins. Co. v. Partnnt, 
1 H. L. and P. 0. !»6 ; 5 I^eg. Nr^ws, 26, by a similar pro- 
cess of reasoning, restrained the generality of sec^on \), 
sub-section 2, " The Regulation of trade and commerce," in 
order to give scope to the local power over property and 
civil rights, and L Union St. Jacques ^ Beliste, and Outing Sf 
Dupuy, 6 H.L. & P.O. 186 ; 26 L.CJ. 170 ; 6 I^. News, 88, 
were referred to as being in the same sense. Furthermore, 
the Privy Council enunciated the doctrine of progressive 
interpretation, to which I havo already alluded in this 
opinion. To this it is answered — true so far, a general 
power will be restrained to give scope/to a special power. 
This distinction does not meet the cases. In the case last 
ihentioned, two powerb general a^d exclusive, one attri- 
y buted by section 91, the other l>y section 92, somewhat 
in conflict, were compelled toliye together. In Oushing 
y. Du/nf^ it was' a conflict of powers equally general. 
Palpably the double en^iheration enacted for " greater 
X certainty" is a faulty construction, and it bdbomes necessary 

' for us, to carry out the intention of the legislature, to find a 

_. nuxlus. Vivendi. We ar^ not t6 construe the statute so as to 
make our institutions impossible ; we are not to lay down 
a rule which "followed up to its consequences would go 
" far to destroy that power (the provincial) in all cases," 
as Lord Selbom^ has said. (1 Cartwright 71.) This must 
be the language of every jurisconsult ; and it is thus the 
great judges of the United States have dealt with their 
constitutioh. As an instance, in the case already cited of 
MyUo^ V. The United Slates, Chase, J-, said : " The rule of 
-^apportionment (an express rule of \ the constitution) is 
y only to he adopted in such cases where it can reasonably 
> apply/' I shall make four quotatipns from the case of 



V. .. 



«-• . . , „ - . 

CX)URT OF QUEEN'S BEKCII. jgi 

tho CWt»«u /MuraiMe OmpMv S^ Pwaont to show that 



Krf^^' 



■•■'iM 



--...1, 



IMS. 



LsidIhi. 



tho Privy Council has used ^he aamu fre«idom of int«r-'"ttN.H *«. 
pretation, and has hold that, in spite of tho absolute form ^V"" ' 
of sections 91 and 1)2, the courts will read them together, 
and modify one or the other or both; to meet the general 
nniuiroments of the act, and to attain the ends parliament 
must be supposed to have had in view :— 

" Hut it niiiat littvo \mn foreMnii that this shaq* himI doflnito «ll8tlin> 
lion liiul not bww itiul (H>uld not be attuinml, an(k tliat some of tlio dMnnii 
..fmibJootH aiwiKnwl t«. the provincial loKislatiiroH unavoi.lal.ly ran. Into 
iiwl were enibracetl by some of the ennnieratwl .Iumuw of »iil)UH.ts in 8c«- 
lion 01." 

" Notwlthstondirig tliis emleavoiir togive proHjminonco to tlio Dominion 

|«rliament In cases of a conflict of lowers, it is obvious that in somecuseH 

wiiero this 4|.|mrout.>onrtictoxi8tfl, the l«Kisl»tnro conW not have intended 

Hu»t the powers excluHivoly awignua to the provincial legislaturo should 

Ik» aljsorl)ed in those given to tlie Dominion government" 

•• It couhl not Wave Iwoh the intention that a conflict sliould exist, and, 
in order to prevent such a result, tlw languagi* of the .actions must be 
roiMl toRothor, and that of one interpreted, and where necessary modified 
by that of the other." 

"It becomes obvious, as soon as an attempt is. made to construe the 
gonorul terms in wliipl, the clasHes of subjects in sections 91 and 02 are 
(leHcril)e<l, tliat both sections and tlw other parts x)f the act must be looked 
at to ascertain whether language of a general nature must not, by neoos- 
«ary implication <ir reasonable intendment, be modified and limited." 
(1 Cartwright, 271-2-3-».) 

But it may be still furthernrged that the majority of 
the court is endeavoring to restrain the particular power 
of sub-section 8, section 91, by the general sub-section 16 
of section 92. To this I ^nswer, that it is not the gener- 
ahty of the terms in which a power is conveyed that 
decides as to its nature, so in L' Union St. Jacques Sf Belide 
it was the general sub-^sectio^ 16 of section 92 that qualified 
and restrained sub-8tK;tion " 21, Bankruptcy and insol- 
vency," precisely as the court does in this instance. 
"Clearly this matter is private; clearly it is local, etc.," 
said Lord Selbome ; and therefore it is a power giveii to 
the local legislatures. I need hardly add that the court 
does not contend that sub-section 16 could prevail if it 
were incompatible with sub-section 3. But this it cannot 
be, unless we hold that there cannot be dpuble taxation, 
which is untenable, {Bemis et al. Sf Board of Aldermen ^ 




\' ■ <-^ 



0% 



19S 



MONTHEAL iJiW RRt-ORTS. 



In*. Oku 

k 
Uab«. 






BotUm, 14 Allon, 868^. Benidna, th(> power of donblo Uza- 
^jJjP^Jji^: tioii i« expn'Hsly ivcognizod by the Act. 

Od the unin question, oh to whethor there is any other 
power to tax except by way of licenne than that set forth^ 
in sub-sec. 2, the caso^of Dow .V Black, h. R., 6 P. 0. 272, 

ems to rurnish dirtMt authority. Hir ^atnes Golvile, in 
l\ronounciug the Judgment of the Privy Couhcil said: — 
heir lordships are further of opinlSii" with Mr. Justice 
'inher,/the dissentient judge in the Supremo court, that 
" the hvi in question, even if it did not fait within the 2nd 
" arttit'h^ (of sert. 02), would clearly b« a law relating to n 
" mj^tter oi n Inereiy local or private nature vyithin the reading 
" of the 9th article of section 92, of the imperial statute." 
It is evident the learned judge meant the 16th article of 
section 92, for he had just declared that article 9 had 
"obvipuHly no bearing on the present question." Again, 
the words " of a merely loca^ or private nature," are not 
used in article 9, they are used in article 16 and in no 
other pkrt of section Q2. And lastly, if this is not enough, 
to agree with Mr. Justice Fisher, article 16 must have 
been intended, for that learned judge said : " It also 
"appearAto me that the act 38 Vic, c. 4*7, comes within 
" the category of powers provided fox in the 16th clause 
"of the 9^d section of iMfo B. N. A. Act, 186*7, being purely 
" a matter pf a local nature." It seems to me theu, that it 
is safe to say that Dow 8c Black lays down the principle 
as formally \ as it can be laid down (barring only the slip 
as to the number of the sub-section), thqft the sub-sections 
2 and 9 do not exclude from the powers of the local legis- 
latures the right to propose other forms of taxation. 

The learned Chief Justice has referred to the case of 
Dow Sf Black as though it were an obiter dictum. It is true 
it was not necessary for their lordships to speak of this, 
but it was scartcely obiter, for it was before them, and it 
had formed a ground of dissent in the court below. 

While the argument in this case was going on, we 
learned by telegraph that the Privy Council had con- 
firmed the decisipii^ of the Supreme court in Hu Attorney 
General SfReei.' % have not been enabled to see nyhat their 






.A Vt IV*.. 



rj ,f,-Jj. I." '^.I 



COURT OF QUEENfl BENCH. 



198 



Ilia. Ou^ 



brdnhlp- raid in that o«ao. exoopi through the mediam of «««. 
iiowiipapGT roportH, from which I am not diHpoiwd to takn TV. n h * m, 
tho decision, inaamuch as it ia naual for the Privy Ooumil ""' 
to submit a report in writing, which lays down precise 
propositions. And, in any case, the report, such as wo 
have it, doos not affoct my opinion in this case. If the 
10 cents tax was a lax at all, it was not direct taxation, 
within the meaning of tho R N. A. Act. In Mr. J. 8. 
Mills' opinion, its character would only be determined 
with the end of the litigation, and when it was decided 
who should pay the costs of filing the exhibit. I am not, 
however,, of tho opinion that tho Jus adkendi which the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court seems to think is pos- 
sessed by courts, can possibly go to tho extent of compel- 
ling us to accept as an admitted truth the so-called science 
of political economy or tho theories of Mr. Mill, and lest my 
indo<!ility to accept such doctrines may appear presump- 
tuous, I shall quote two paragraphs from Mr. Jevons, 
"Theory of Political Economy," one from the preface, the 
other the concluding sentence of the work, dealing with 
Mr. Mills' claims to bo considered as the high priest and 
prophet of political economy, and with the so-called 
science as known: 

"Tliecoiitento of the following pageii can hardly meet-wUh ready 
icceptance among thone who regard the science of political economy as 
having already ac.iiilred a nearly i«rfect form. I iKilievo it ia'-teenerally 
8ui.IK«ed, that Adam Smith laid tho foun-aationn of tliis acfonce; that 
MalthuH, Anderson and Senior a«lded important doctrinea; thatBicardo 
sysUmatised tlie whole; and finally, that Mr. J. a Mill flileiif in the 
.lotnils and completely exponndocl tliiH branch of knowledge. Mr Mill 
appears to have had a similar notion ; for he distinctly asserts that there 
waH nothing in tho laws of value which remained for himself or any 
future writerlo dear xx\^. Doubtless it is difficult to help feeling tliat * 
opinions adopted and («nftrmed by stich eminent men have much weight 
of proljttbiiity in their favor. Yet, in the other sciences this weight of 
authority has not been allowed to restrict the free examination of new 
opinions and-tlieories; and it has often been ultimately proved that 
aotliority was on the wrong side." (Theory of Political Economy. W b 
Jevons, iwge v.) , 

"tHK NOXIOUS INPLUHNOR or' AirmORITV. 

" I have but a few words more f« add, I have ventured in the preced- 
ing iHiges to call in question not a few of the favorite doctrines of econom- 
Vou I. Q. B. 13 • 




J 



'\ 



!13S 
lis: 



"Ml 



«««• 






i 



I' 



• '>&A.^M>ii J^^i,^JtsMl&£t& . 



104 



\ ; MONTBBAL LAW REPOBTR ''"- 



lata. To mn U In fur mow pbiuAnt in (Mrnw tlmii In ti\th>r ; but II In 



TMN. P- ♦ M. Impomilbki that Iw who haw iiiiy nv«nl for Inith cun lonn »voi<l protMithiK 
nL.«i •«•••»•* «l«'t'li"« whlt'hjkeum t«» h 






''f 



r> 



1 



y.'V 



1> 



_^ __ Itii trroiuNHM. Tlwni !• ever • tftixUmi-y 

ofa niiiHt hiirtftil klml hi allow o|iinloii>. t«i <r)»tulllm» Into «ni«lji. Kwiwl- 
ally il(M*HlliiM ttMiiloiirv niaiiir<<al iliMtlf wli<<ii moiiio oinlmmt author, willi 
tiMi jiower of fU>ar atxl <oiiiprnlM'nMlv«» ox|HN«itioii, Ih««'oiih>h nKjonni**! a* 
an anthorlty on th« anhj««t. IMa workM may |ii«ilhly »m far tlw* twat 
which urtMixtant; thtiy may foinhino moro trutlj with Imawrror tliaii wi< , 
can olwtwhom linil. Ihit any man may orr. an<l tUii \wM worka ahonlM 
vuiT \m ojH'n to critiiiMm. If, inattfail of welromin^ lnt|uiry an<l rriliiiani, 
th« ailmin>ra of u immt uulhrlr act>n|it hiji writlnipt m uiithorltutivi*, t)otli 
in thoir t^xicllonitw anil (UtfiTtM, tint moMt aoriona injnry ia dono to truth 
lnmuttMrMof,phrlo»(opliy and aoionro authority Iihm ovor lawn tli« Kn«at 
nliporierit of troth. A tliwpotic daim ia tho trinmtili «if frmrj in tlif 
n«pul»llv of th«> ai'lonc«»B atilitlon and ovon anan-hy art* (tUnnwMidahhv" 

In The AU(rrnei/ Oenernl ^ Reed I do not loarn from the 
roiwrt I hftv« soon that tho docisioii of th« Privy Council 
in DoiP Sr Black ha« been di«ti1l(ctly ovor-rulod. Until this 
is done in precise terms I* shall continue to hold that 
the loi'al legislatures may impose taxation by other ipodos 
than those set forth in sub-sections 2 and 9 sec. 92. In 
arriving at this conclusion I am satisfied to think that t]he 
most submissive case-lawyer could not (ionftno hinopelf 
more completely within his self-constituted jpristoti than 
' the mtyority of this court has confined itself virithin the 
bounds of precedent. Of course, I don't count the case of 
Severn Sf ITie Queen. If we were to be bound by it, noth- 
ing^ could be said on the right to tax indirectly ; but it is 
only the decision of an intermediate^ Court of Alppeal, and 
^n a matter of this kind it cannot be considered, conclu- 
sive. It is also pleasing to know that ip a greaipart of 
the judgment there is unanimity in this court. We all 
reject the pretended sHentific meaning of direct t&xation, . 
and this, I hope, will check the objectionable practice of, 
reading books that are not authority in cotirt. Where we ' 
differ is as to the nature of the tax and as to the power 
of the local legislature to collect indirect taxeir. I have 
pot alluded to tho argument of the possible abuse of the 
taxing power. We constantly hear it said, if the local 
legislatures have all powets of taxation, they may destroy 
.trade and commerce, and so forth. j, xWe is some truth 






v^J>tti^j^''. 



, H„' ' iIMmi 'J^ .i* 



.'..jitdjU. ^.^e'Ju^^tiy^'fsSi^tifi^iQ^^^) 



'*« 



# 



'™^^-'^ '-^^^'^ T^p 



/ ! 



ooijwt Of QVWKtrn bknch. 



m 



In thli. Th« folly of killing th« h«n th.t Up th« gold.n "^^ 
W - not .now Ide. to the world. However, the pn««mp. %« M 
tion I. th.t the in.titution« of ffov«rnm«nt tm,d to «„rloh ^^J^ 
«tul not to omrmvoriHh th« .ubje^t. Vory «itromo cnm» '-^• 
ra«y come up which, undnr the prin. iple. I hav« mid«a- 
vored to explain, and whi.h I undorKtand to bo tho.« 
-•mtiotied by th« Privy Coun.-il. will ^ive ri«o to di.tinc 
tion« with which tho .ourt. will have to. deal But in 
any .^« th« simple abuse of the po w«r to tax <,an al wayr 

^ilX"' ^"*^' ^^ '^-"^^ ^^^^ 'y *^« 

W*^ are to maintain ^h« taxee in all the .aneH. and con- 
H^'cluontly the JudgmentH in t}ie Hve bank comoh will »h, 
r?ver«ox^. and in tho four other .■.«..« the JudgmentH will 
b*» «;onfirmed. 

Baby, J.\;— ' 

At this lite hourof the day. within a few minutes of the 
time fixed forXthe adjournment, it would be m hori daw^e 
xm my pajt to attempt giving my opinion at full length on 
the very important questions at insue. and which have 
been so thoroughly ventilated by my learned colleagues 
I would almost suffice ^x me to say. that I share goner- 
ftlly in the opiniona so i^bly enunciated by ray learned 
r)rother8, Justices Ramsay and Tessior. 

Nevortheless. I m<»y add that my judgment rests prin- 
«apally on two points which have been brought out most 
conspicuously in the courseof the discussion :— 
1st. That this is a direct tax. ^ 

2ndr., Thot. whatever the name by which it mayv.be 
colled, direct or indirect, the Legis^ture of the Province' 
of Quebe(! had the iwwer of imposing it within the Prov- 
ince, for local purposes. 

In the first place. 1 say that the t&x complained of here 
18 a direct tax, according to what is generally meant and 
understood in Canada by that ternf,a»d as I have always 

understood it ^hen dealing with such a distinction in our 
Bystem of taxation. I have not failed to make a careful 
examination of the numerous authorities quoted by coun- 



M. 



t ,a 



*'>«i 



i.^\ 



m 



•I . f 



S^'^f'^" i^.''*;ij£^l^£L, 



h9^' 



^1" 










.^.. 



o 



■•r 



\-'^. 



19^ MONTHRAL LAW HRI\)inU 

Ml on both Nld(*« m to the ilMai float ion into dinnH And 
iHdiriH't taioM Th«'y nil v*ry more or l»'w», aiiording to 
th« t'ountry in whi« h tlu'y w«»r»» wrill«'n, or lh« iwrticuUr 
Mchool of |)olitii«l wonomy thoir aathom r«i»r««ont. It 
would Imj an nnn««« owMiry tmik for in« to r«vl«w th«ni 
now ; it would h« ui«r«>ly going ovor raurh of tho ground 
alr«t«dy lr»v«'rii«»<l hy tlio r<««rn(Hl judgot, and \w a r«H>«ti- 
tion whlth touhl not «'v»mi luivi'tlit' pn-toxt of throwing 
a ymrk of light on th« nubjiHit, a« all m'mn toMoncur in 
th»( inapplioabllity of th« doctrinna of iKilUical w onoiniatu 
in d<>aling with thu m»tti>r bwibris iw- 

Hy tho Htatut«^ nought to Im- wi iwido aa boing uUra vim, 
th« tai in qucHtiou iw imixmiHl dln«tly on Iho lUnka and 
othor inMtitutiona thortnn noinud carl-ying on buiiinuaa 
within th« Provimroof Qu»d)w. Thoyan^ all in<or|)orat«!d 
bodicN for th« moat port, holding th«<ir iK)w«*ra «ithor 
under f«'doral or l(K;al h-fiMhrtion. CouHiilorablo oHbrta 
have bt'cn inud«^ toitMtubllNh indiM«rimiiiut|»Ly th^t no ror- 
poration of thia kind lould bo dittxtly tauld in iti iwmon. 
Now, if an ordinary person can b« ao taxed, I fail to aoe 
why a corporation roufd not be tax«'d iu the like manner, 
aa, by our law, every eorporotion iH o p^rHon ((^.C Art. 862). 

It W08 argued in this respect that th*^ tax in (|ne8tiou 
might fall on foreigners or on capital owned totally or in 
part by persons residing out of the Troviuce of Quebec 
and, therefore, it was not taxation " within the Province." 
This wan followed up by another objection, viz, : that the 
impost (tomploined of was put on a capital that might not 
be found within the limita of tho Province, in other^ 
words, that a foreign Bank carrying on its operations in 
Quebec had, most likely, but a very small proportion of 
its capital engaged here, that it might, therefore, be tAxed 
elsewhere, and the ccsnsequenco would bei th at th e same 
capital might be taxed several times over.' ' 

Thei^ is not much force, I think, yrx tl«3se two objec- 
tions^ In the first plac^e, these cbrporatixJiiB have their 
legal domicile within the Province, and from the moment 
they have taken ij^ up.'^they became undoubtedly amen- 
able to ita laws ; and, in the second plftce, yirherever a 

1 - ' ' - . .',- . . 



. f 












•t- 



't 



-I. 



own? Of QUKHMli UEIfC^i. 



m 



Bank or lik« iiwtUaHon op«iii« hiiifii«Mi. it mnat h«» midUy "» 
•ilmittiNl that it do<w mt in its cor|K>r»t« uttmn and m a^J/A" 
wholi* ; it ia (h« r<>rtK>ration that acta au<l not a rurtain ^a 
nnmbttr of ahan«hold«ni or a i»roportion of thuin. accord- "^^ 
Ing to thA amount of capiUl invtmtod. 

On th« UHond jwint. I My that. Hr«n ahould thia tai b« 
not a din.ct on«s thf Ugi«latur« of Quob*^ hiJf tho Hght • ^ 
of impoaitif it in th« «ionim< of on« of ita inh.»ri"ut 
power*. A poopli^ nan undoubtwiiy tai itaalf through ita 
logiilatoni in Parliain.'nt aaaomblfld. Now, by th« Brjytiah 
N, A. Art, IH07, th« M^roral ih-ovinem forming "Thel^ 
minion of (Canada," at thoir own uMiumt, hav« b.«m 
grantiKl r«a|MjcUv«ly a h^giiilaturiv with • «rtain ouumorattnl 
I»ow«ra. Tho gimoral powora of taxation « annot b« im- 
pliadly Uk«m away fVom thorn. It r.Hiuir«a an t^ipreaa 
and rloar omu tm.nt of tho law to d^privn thorn of what 
m « i»rimary right. Thoro'ia nothing of tho kind, howover, » 

in the Act, which ihonid bo liborally intorprotod, that ia to 
■ay, in tho wuno aonao and apirit aa it waa tntaea and 
grantod to ua by tho Imperial Parliament. Doing other- 
W^, would bo taking to piortw and breaking up thia 
groat treaty, made and entered into botwoon tho varioua 
Hritiah N. A. ProvinJea, , under the sanction and for the 
welfare of tho Kmpir*. ^ 

I am of opinion thai tho lo«ral legiflaturos alone and ex- 
cluaivoly have tho right of imposing direct imposts with- 
in their respective provinces, to raise a revenue for pro- 
vincial purposes, but this right given by the l>2nd (lauae 
of the British N. A. Act, 1867, does not imply an abandon- 
ment by them of all other rights of taxation, or a prohibi- 
tion to them to levy money by any other mode or system 
of taxation within the province and for provincial ends. In 
other words, I read clauses 91 and 92 of said Act— which 
have certainly to be reconciled— as giving to the Domin- 
ion or fed^eral legislature the power of raising money by 
any mode or system of taxation, except provincial taxation 
lor provincial objects, which is the right teserved to and 
conferred specially and exclusively on the local legiala- 
turei, but, at the same time, not depriving in any way the 



' 1 




mi 



Bi 



i|. 



M 



\' 






ion 



La# 



* n 




■<,'' 



Si 



M^ U<l(»r IV^i •x«foWii« tW tight fit Uiiif Mii^lky^ for 
^ /tf," lh*e otijiiiiote fer whhph limy w«f| owwitml. •ad which 

\ ' •*■*• I ||,u a^f#» thmt tliki (ti(«r|>r«tA(iAn iif t.h« HuluUi 

not litMtti ftt:4:«t^ >» o«ift*in quarU«r». but ^ "%nttol M 
to b« praflUiAl-^ho^ my otkmt mn Iw givMi. ^ 

It hM d«o b«wtt iUUmI that (hb U tn •soIm Im and, 
IhtrMfoi*. did not fall wilhln th« JttH*dirtioii of th« UntA 
%f(i»\tkhir*y I r«il to tMty how it mn h« toniitrtttMl into 
such a ttti. By <*iiUH«*, ini^nmirally uiidMnUKKl thii imiNMl 
put on Iha hom«« producU iM«uu(W;turvd or olhurwiM. 
Thi tuti pat on i^iiti, tobictio, msh, tfonr, oiMd,/kBre 
•IwAjTi biMU t'on«id<ir(Kl m «xoiii«< datiea in OiinadM and no 
aiWr kind of Uk. Tha vory UAina nifrnifimi tbia. Thnro 
i^ BO purity h«rt^ 
/ MV<' hnvf it Mid thiH tat i« ino|>|H)rtun«,'unreM<>ii»biu, 
, ut\juMt Wh«»tht*r it b« »o or.tho mvarMi !• not foi' this 

Court to dm^idtv—that is tho political aidw of th« quiwtion 
and not the lagfal. Thw Ui may b« iM<rf««ily legal on th« 
ono hand, and quitu inopportune on thu othor. it tmi» 






■•!#• 



i>:. 

:¥ 



><; — r».,. 



thi'U with th«i p<M>pl«i to dtH^idw, by thwir rwah|ii«^^iJ;^U^-tta 
in Parliamont, wh«>tht>r it should Im^ nbro^fpM ii<^ot I 
hold, inor(*ov«r. that it dmm not Tail within our dpi^l^" ^o 
wft aiiid«t a tax inipoMMl t>y a proper authority b«H'jiuii« tho 
A'in«< Hiay happon to i-loHh— ■omit day or othwr — with thi* 
IMtwttrM of tttXttlion apiHtrtaining to auothor branch of our 
political organisation. 

On th« w|)iQle, I am for confirming the Jadgm«mt« which 
maintain t)iy|j|^tax«M and to rovumo thoatt which net them 
aside. 

Th» following are the amtidilranti applica^ to each of 
the nine caaeq: — W' 

"Tlie Court, etc * i 

" Considering that the taxes complain«<d of in this cam* / 

were and arot^tap^Mied by a statute of tho Legislature of 
the Province olj^ebec, passed in the 46th year of Her 
Majesty's reigi^^^^|||i^g' i|j||^mbered Chapter 22 of the 
Statutes of the 
" And consid 




<t^ 



lid said^^ynilature had pdwer 



,7 







OCWKT Of Qimmi RtlfTR 

to lapiMii tb« Ittid dutim, iuMmiKh •• th« ««ia t»fi« «rf« *■> 
ilir«('( |iijp« w^hin lh« l^>viiic#, and w«r« iin()^«4 iu *^^< 
ardfjr H>|nU*« i n^v«nut» for provin* i*l pQr|M»««« ^^ ^ 
" And «4mMUI*«ring hirthnrmom, thut «*vi<n Magmlng Ilia 
Mild Ux««* Nhottid b« *-uiuild«*r«d m mM bllitiK /Wtthtn tha 
dMitoniinaUon of Ainni Usnt, lb« idd l^^nUtum had 
powtr In ImpoM thtf Miin<<, JnMmarh m^« Mid Uim 
w«n« mattctniol • mi^r«\]f \amkm ptirtAfnminm in lk« 




fw liy 



Uin Lii^nnM 



luii|MH tor. ftnd 0MJ|y3bl|||t^«> foay yippttal* bjt uorpor** 

SJB| . -—7^ ■ - ■/ - - - 

ImtgKf, BtM^m 4* moumm, kHornaftt for 



tioiu 



LMnb« nfqmt. in kit lh«« ,%mm 

Km$^ Cmirn Sf UoldUnn, Atiurn^yi for Uiu N. B. Ae M•^ 
< «iiUI« Insunrntio Co.. and tha wtport Lumbar Oo. 

Abbfdt, na ^ Abbails, kttorudy for tho Ontario Bank, 
M«*r<'hant« Baiitc, am! MolMon/Bank. 

Mitrlarrm, Ijift J^ Smith, Atl;6rn«ya for the Oan j^ip Bank 
of (/oiiuh«irr«. / ^P 

Archibald 4* McCormiek, iLtlbrnMya for the William* Bianil- 
i'aotarinH: Oo. / 

Ormnfiutdi, MrOifrkiidt Ouerm, Attornnya for the Ogden»* 
burg Coal & Tuwing j3o. 



■*»'. 




r. -•-i'- . 



^.: 



/ 

^ 



t 



t 









»4 



■'•#1 



f4M«< 







• 


'. . 


* 


ft ^* 


■ 


j. 

! 
i 
1 




4,^ 




in 

''1^9 




v.» 


« 


^H 










'■ 







il9| 


» 


«h 


•i^. 


ll 


,. ^ _ 


\ f 


•' 


11 







'^I^SOiJl^ 







.■ J* I I . •> 



^ 



"% 



^ '11 " \ , .. 



n ««'4V';. 






'f^£ 










h' h 









■■^■. 






■r 'im 


i'V 


r- \iiW 


«'■■: . ■ 


i ffl 


p.;. ''■ 


i;. ,vU^ 


I'-'. ' ■- 


V ^jS 


!'■ -'*'■■■ 


"'^1 


II:-." ■'■ 


I. V 5 
j! 


■'> . !' 


1; 


' '•%•..- 


i - 


■•••ii 


£ ■ 


•^•»' 



> 



• it 




-fi 



20D s^' 



,■■■..■ r. :. . • •■■ •••11 ■ ^ 

MONTMlALoLAW REPOR^. ' ' 



/ -^ : ;W26, 1884. 

« *■ - ■ ""i^ 't- * -'" ■ •i's* >. 

• Cjoram MpJIK, J^ IaM«Ay, J-r tEB^iE^iUX/ Cross, J. 



■aait/ 



LA CORPORATION DE LA Pil^QlSSE DE STE-ANNE 

DU BOUT Dfi L'ISLE 

. r ; {Defendant below), 

APPKLLAI^ ; 
ANP 

, ' « , W; A. REBURN 

V -V ■ {Plaintiff below), 

^^'^ Respondent. 

■ -' Serviti^—Wdter-courx-^Procis-verbal. ; 

Altliouuli itm witliin the attributes ofmuniitijMjlities to make by-lawB ami 

procl^-rerhiux for tl.e oiwning of water-courses, ami a person iiijyrw! 

. . tlHjrehy, may have oxertised hjs riglit of appeal to the'eounty connciT, 

uiid WwimKhs-rcrkahm l)e«?n confirmed by the county council, never- 

tiiflcss such confirmation is not a bar to an action to sot aside the 

luon-^TfkU whore \i orders somfethinjr to be done which is in 

itself .rontrary to law. And so^,whore the effect of a watoiM-onrw^ 

Vstabhsbo<l In- pnKi^rrhU was to aggravate greatly the servitude 

. winch (be plaintiff's land ba^l to bear owing to its being lower than 

(hat of hm neighbours, it was held, that ho was entitle*! to bring suit 

tol.ave the,>roctVr«;rV,/ set asi.le, although he had api»aled previously 

to, the county *ouncil and the;jro<^wvT6a/ had been confirmed thereby. 

T^e following Was the text^of the judgment appeabd 

Irom (Superior Couft, Montreal, Papineau, J., Dec 31 

.^ 1881) :— . • • ■ ' 

" LaooUTi etc. 

"Considferantqu'ilest prouv6 que le proces-verbalde 
court d'eau eu date du 21 juillet 1875, homologu6 par le 
conseil muiiicipal de la Paroisse de Ste-Anne du Bout de 
risle, et subsequemment amende par une r6solution du dit 
conseil, en date du 26 d6cembre 18'78, n'a jamais 6te 
4emande par le demandeur dont le fonds de terra est d'un. 
niveau.inf6rieure a celui des fonds des nomm6s Isidore 
;Pilon et Jean-Baptiste Vinette dit Larente, qui seuls ont 
- >demande le di^ proces-verbal, et que le cours d'eau.ordonn6 
par ce proces-verbal ne pent pas servir 4 6gouter les par- 
ties" basses de la terre du demandeur ; 



"Con 

partie d 
mOme di 
votsin di 
d'homm 
grande 
ordonn6i 
" Oonj 
procesrvi 
'oles 8ec( 
'entreiei 
' Laretite 
'8ign6 (s 
'pour s'e: 
'draitfai 
'tears dite 
" Cons 
auxprop 
Vinette e 
plus grai 
natttfelle] 
de Thomi 
'Conseil m 
d'agraver, 
V du fonds ( 
,''Con8i( 
du^r^Pil 
partie de J 
Vinette et 
Ja terre di 
verbal, la 
, aconduin 
des dites t 
"Consic 
1878, au d 
interessfis, 
et du temj 
ces-verbal, 
meure de i 
imendeme 




> 



K-'Jft . 



.26, 1884. 
Dross, J. 

STE-ANNE 

telota), 
A.PPELLA1^ ; 



>et(no), 
Respondent. 



ike by-lawB uiul 
perapu inj^rtnl 
county ooniM^-5, 
■ founcil, never- ' 
o sot uaido till! 
a which is in ' 
u watoiM-ounH' 
f the servitude 
ing lower than 
mI to bring suit 
aled previously 
firmed there])y. 

at appeabd 
J., Dec. 31, 



es-verbal 4« 
ogu6 par le 
da Bout de 
atioh du dit 
jamais He 
irraest d'tin. 
m6s Isidore 
li seals ont 
iaa.ordoone 
iter les par- 






COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



201 



Oon8id6raiit qa'en .v^rta da dit procAs-verbal, ane i"**- 
p.jrtie de leaa des terras des dits Pilon et Vinette. et V?" If ' 
mfime d. celle.de la terre da nomm6 Saav6. le troisiJme iS^^ 
voisinda domandear, est amenee, par travaax de mainw aC™ 
d homme, et se d6verse sar la terre da demandear en plas 
grande quantitfe qu'elle u'y viendrait sans les travaax 
ordonn6s par le dit proces-verbal ; 

" Oonsid6rant qa'il est 6crit eu toates lettres dans le dit 
proces.verbal : ' qae les dits coars d'eaa d6sign6s aax arti- 
cles second et troisidme (da dit proces-verbal) seront faits 
entretenas par moiti6 par les dits Jean-Baptiste Vinette dit 
Lareate et Isidore Pilon. .qai ont demands acte aa soas- 
8ign6 (sarmtendimt nomm6 par le conseil ds dite qaalit6 

poar 5 eam/,ter respectivement des travaax qa'il lear faa- 
drait W;^ a«mr «»/o«^ ^/%«, riiin^ ,„ ;^^ ^ . 

leursdUes terres et qui serait loin d'etre impossible dfyire • ' 

Consid6rant qa'il n'a 6te proav6 aacan titre donnant ^ 

aax propn6taires des terres possed^es par les dits Pilon 

Tmette etSaav6, droit de faire d6verser de lear terre ane 

Plasgrrande qaantitfe d'eaa qae celle qai en d6coalait 

natarellement sar celle da demandear. s^que la main^ 

de 1 homme y eat contriba6. et qae sans an tel titmfl^: 

conseil manicipal de lad^fenderesse n'avait pas lepoavOir 

in^^^ "^^^ ''* P'^^'^^^^^^'il y *^ait, sar la terre 
dudi^Pilpn une §l6vation de terrain qai empfichait ane 
VW f r^^i^"^ ainsi qae I'eau de la terre I 
Vanette efde celle delSaav6.4e coaler, natarellement. sar 
ia terre da demandear. et que. par Peffet da dit proces- 

Ild ' ^'*' f "'*"* ^^ *^""" ^ ^'^ -«P^« d« "^anT'e 
condmre sar la terre da demandear I'eaa d'ane portion 
des dites terres qai n'y venait pas aaparavant ; 

18^8 ri^f*''* ^""^ IWendenient da 26 de d^cembre) 
1878 aa dit proces-yerbal a 6t6 fait sans avis donn6 aa3 
nteres86s, smvant Particle 810 da code manicipj, daliea 
et da temps aaxqaels devait commencer I'examen da pro- 
ces-verbal et qae les int6ress6s n'ont pas ^tfiinisenX 
^^^e^valp^^rs droits^ 






:l':.5 




I III* ' 

liiiSi 



\ ^ 






202 



MONTBEAL LAW REPORTa 










1 ;iam 




,-^MSm 


Sv . " ' 


<■ [Wm 


1; :•;; 


vm 








•^«i* 
•■*•«» 



I IIP 



MM. " Oonsid^rant que le Conseil manicipal de la d^fende- 

i*OorMeu yesse a excfed6 ses pouvoirs en ordonnant le dit proces* 
U^t^""rwS verbal et son amondement 'sous les circonstances prouv^es 
w, A. Reburn. dans la cause ; 

" Consid6rant cependant que le quantum des dommages 
soufferts par le demandeur n'a pas 6t6 d6teTmin6 par la 
pteuve; 

" Con8id6rant que la d6fcndere88e||i'a pas prouv6 les 
allegations essentielles au soutien de sa d6fense, la Cour 
renvoie celle-ci et annule le dit proces-verbal en autant 
que le demandeur y est concern^, avec d6pens contre la 
dfefonderesse distraits a Maitres R. et L. Laflamme, avocats. 

du demandeur. ^ _ ^ ^^ 

H. C. St. Pierre, for the appellant :— 
Le premier point souleye par la defenderesse est celui-ci : 
I Le demandeur se plaint de I'homologation d'un proces- 

■ , verbal de cours d'eau par le conseil local de la munici- 

pality de Ste. Anne. La preuve fait voir qu'il s'est prfevalu 
des dispositions du code municipal qui lui permettait de 
porter sa cause en appel devant le f-onseil de comt6 (voir 
les artides 925, 1061.) 

Le Conseil de Comte siegeant comme tribunal d'appel a 

« contirmfe I'llomologation du proces-verbal en question. 

Bien plus, le demandeur en a appel6 a la Cour de Circuit, 

de la decision du Conseil de Comte et son appel a 6t6 de 

nouveau d6bout§. 

La construction ou I'ouverture d'un cours d'eau, dans 
unemunicipalite rurale, est incontestablement une chose 
qui, de sa nature, tombe sous la jui^diction du conseil 
municipal ou se trouve ce cours d'eaii. De plus, dans le 
cas present le demandeur intim6 a formellement accepts 
- - et admis la juridiction du conseil, en plaidant devant lui j 
et en portant sa cause en appel devant le conseil de comt6 
et devant la Cour de Circuit. 

Nous affirmons 2o. que cecouTs d'eau intferesse quatre 
r contribuables en y incluant le demandeur intiin§, et que 

ce dernier doit'Mre tenu comma les trois antres dela| 
maniere indiqufee dans le procds-verbal en vertu des arti- 
cles 8t0, 8T2, 868, 884, 88'7 et 868. ^ -- . _ ...^.^ 



■t"; i' 



, ^-igx'" 3f:^^'^;?r»^'»,"|^»?s^??^'' *'Tj^g?>^j- ^^^■'■»r^^^''^^fr-^^,^iim'^^te'm'y;'^''f'^ < j"^#^ -^■^ear.^^ 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCXL 



'208 



1884. 



Maintenant se prfisento une troisi^me question. Etant 
etabli que Ip conseil avait juridiction, est-ce le conseil ou ^'gje"'' "• 
laCour Supferieure qui doit 6tre juge et de I'opportunitfi |,'*-Sjf, 
(i'ouvrir un cours d'eau et de I'endroit ou il doit 6tre loca-L a. Lam 
lisfeetde la manidre de I9 construire? Nous concluons 
qne c'est le conseil qui est le seul juge et de I'opportunitfe 
et de la maniere de faire le cours d'eau en question, et que 
les arguments ab inconvenienti que Ton cherche k faire va- 
loir maintenant ne peuvent pas donner k la Oour Sup6- 
rieure une juridiction d'appel quelaloilui aformellement 
enlevfee en d6clarant que cet appel serait pris devant le 

I conseil de Comt6 dont la decision sera finale. 

Hon. R La/lamnu, Q. C, for the respondent : 

Pour determiner exa^toient les droits des proprietaires 
et les limites de raji#«^|inunicipale en mati^re de cours 
d'eau, en autant ^m^.|^s pouvoirs et ces obligitions 
penvent exc6der lefe t^roirs que le droit commun impose 
comme servitudes, relativement a l'6coulement des eaux, 

lil est nficessaire de consid6rer les disposition]^ du Code 

Imunicipal^ qui sont contenues dans le titr^^. J L'article 
867 de ce titre declare :— " Tons les cours 4'ej^8efvant.^ 

I "6gouter plusieurs terrains, except les fosses dei lignfi qid 
"n'egoutent que les deux terrains entre lesquels ils so^ 

|"8itu6s et les fossfes de chemins, sont rfegis d'apresles dis- 

■"positionsde ce titre." 
Cet article excepte de la juridiction municipale les fos8§s 

Ide lignes qui n'egoutent que les deux terrains entre les- 

[quels ils sont situ^s. 

Les municipalit6s n'ont en consequence aucune autorite 
Ide statuer, par voie de reglements ou proces-verbaux, au 
Isnjet de tels fosses, et les dispositions du Code municipal 
Ines'appliquent que lorsqu'il s'agitd'etablir un cours d'eau 
Ipour egouter plusieurs terrains, et I'articR 4l5 explique 
lencore plus clairement les limites des pouvoirs des muni- 
|eipalites sur ce sujet. Cet article se lit comme 'suiY:^ 

"()rdonner et regler la construction, I'ouverture, l'61ar- 
"gissement, I'approfondissement, le changement, la r6pa- 
' ration ou rentretien, aux dfipens de la corporation, de- 

tous fo88§8, cours d'eau, canaux, souterrains, chaussSs et • 











..18841 

LkOorp. 

Paroiasa \ 

8te-AnneJ 

Bout da IT 

W. A. R«bu| 



, ^.'.'C 






/ 









1 



X 



■.'A 



lit6 on 

an sujet 

jU proceg" I 

rsounes 



. - • /■ , : ■■ ■■ • ■•■■ ■ 

204 / MOilTBEAL LAW BEFORTEf. 

" cldtnre, diui§Ji^nt6r6t des habitants de la m 
" d'me partie notable d'ontre enk. 

'* Tout reglement fait en vertu de cet articl 
" d'un cours d'eau r6gi par un acte 4'accord'oti 
" verbal, a I'effet de subroger la corporation aux 
" teuues aux travaui de ce cours d'eau relativi^ment i 
robligation de faite ces travaux." • 
J^n disant que la municipality pourraordonner et rfigler 
ies cours d'eau faits dans I'int^rdt des hahUafUs de lamunici- 
mlit^, ou d'une partie notable (Tentre eux, il est 6vident\que la 
lijji n'apas voulu faire servir I'autoritfe municipale pour 
dfes objets priv€?6 ou individuels. Autrement, on violerait 
lies droits des proprifetaires, prot6g6s par la loi ; 
\ Notre Code civil, article 501,.dit : " Les fonds inf6riems 
" 80nt assnjettis envers ceux qui sont plus Aleves, k race- 
" vibir les eaux qui en d^coulent naturellement 8an» que 
" laWain d| I'homme y ait contribuC*. Le propri6tMre 
" inierieur n^^^ut pas 6lever de digues qui emp6chW 
'* cetlecoulement ; le propri6taire superieur ne pent riifn 
" fair0 qui aggrave la servitude du ^nd infferieur." 

Defl^olombe, Servitudes, Vol. 1, No. 35 : " Quant ai 
" propifi^taire sup6rieur, I'article 640 dispose qu'il ne peul 
" rien iaire qui aggrave la servitude du fond infSrieur. 

" Ainsi, d'abord, il est evident qu'il ne pent changer, li 
" direction naturelle des eaux ni leur imprimer un cours 
" differefit de celui qui resulte de la situation m6me dea 
" fonds.' 

No. 36i " Le propri6taire sup6rieur nepeut,disons-rious, 
" rien faire qui aggrave rassujettissement du fond ini& 
" rieur : loit en imprimant aux eaux un courant plus 
" rapide ; soit en les faisant retomber de plus haut, apres 
" les avoir pomprim6es pour les 61ever ; soit en r^unissant 
" sur un sekl point les eaux qui se seraient r^panduessui 
'• toute la surface du sol : si forte aquam aut nuyorem fem^ 
" ^ttt citatiorean, atU vehementiorem, out si compritnendo redunr 
" dare effecUih. 1, §1, ff. de aqua et aquee; ajout. Cass. 15 
"mars 1830,irou88e, Sirey, 1880,"I, 2'71). 

La cbUT reiaarquera que la requite, pour obtenir I'^ti- 
.blissement dqce cours d'eau, n'a 6t6 faite que par denxj 



i.- 



^'"^?rf^ ---y 'T-*' 



%r T-f -f •^^a^smj'H.-iPWP^^^'Kl^^ ,?p"^f!^wf'" 



I mumcipalUi on 



relativement i 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



206 



1884. 



Le coure ^c^Kl/SJ* 



individus, et qu'il p'y a r^^ellement d'intfiressfe que le ybi 

\m immediat da demandeui^ Isidore Pilon. 

Id'eauen questioh, suit absolument la ligne de division B^^dTi'iJ?. 
lentre lui et le demandeur intim6. ' «, . I .. *' 

tes.travaux n etaient dumandf-s que par deux individusi 
|Pilfittet^.arante. Le premier fetant le voisin imm6diatl 

I rintim6, et voulant s'exempter des travaux que ce der- ' 
JDier pouvait exiger de lui pour faire un foss^ mitoyeJ 
|dan8 leur ligne de division, s'adjoiut son voisin de Tautrt 

I rotf', pour s'exempter egalement de I'obligation de faire UB 
Ifoesfc mitoyen entre eux deux en ameuant leurs eaux sui 
|iai/ropri6t6 de I'intimC', qui autrement s'ecouleraient na- 
jtnrellement sur leurs propri6t6s respectives. 

Le procds-verbal constate ceci d'line maniere formelle. 

L'ai'ticle dix dit : . •' /^ 

" Les dits cours d'eau dfisignfis aui articles second et 
■"troisidmeserontfaits et entretenus par moiti6, par les 
pdits Jean-Bjkptiste Vinette dit Larante et Isidore Pilon 
"qui ont demands acte au soussigne es dite quality pour \ 

" s'exempter respectivement des travaux qu'il leur faudrait 
"faire pour ouvrir un fos86 mitoyen dans la ligne qui 
"s^pare leurs dites terres et qui serait loin d'6tre impos- 
"siblea'faire." 

n est done 6tabli par le surintendant, sur la declaration 

leipresse des requferants, que leur seul objet en demandant 

|ce cours d'eati etait d'amener les eaux qu'ils devaient 

' ouler par des fosses mitoyens faciles a faire, sur la pro- 

tee du demandeur et d'echapper k une obligation ordi- 

Tl|ire et legale en I'imposant k I'intimfe. 

pes deux individus, en outre, demandaient par leur 

Wte de r6gler les travaux de trois fossfis mitoyens : 

celii^i entre Jpseph Sauve et Jean-Baptiste Vinette dit 

' ite, entre ce dernier et Isidore Pilon, et entre ce der- 

6er k l'intim6 Reburn, pour les relier en passant sur la 

^pnet6 de ce dernier avec un cours d'eaud6j4 verbali86 

I dek du fos86 du Grand Tronc, et ils demandent ceci au 

[lesir de I'article 884 du Code municipal. 

Or c^t article ne s'applique qu'4 un cours d'eau d6ja 

»bli ^ar un proces-verbal, on k un cours d'eau ordonn6 



/ 



i*f 



Via 



■i \'-- 




^ 



'r " 







I ■■"' 

206 



\^v 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



'-».., 



»Vj: 



\.-^ 



v^ >\ 






n ■ 









'"f^ > dftub les circonstances pr^vtiefi par Id Oode et seplemeut 
\ '^^^nAl^ lorsqu'il s'agit de determiner les travanx u exficuter ou a 
' -^MTwc le laire tornjer. 

w. A. Kebiim. Art. 884. " Tout conseil rauiiicipal sur r^solutioa acet 

, " ott'et ou sur la roqut^te d'une ou de plusiears persoimes 

" intferesHfees h I'ouverture, la f^rmciture, la division, la 

" construction ou I'entretien (tun-coun deau tpti est ou doit 

] ' j " Hre sous sa direction, demandajit a r6gler et determiner 

" les trWaux a executer sur ce cours d'oau ou k le faire 

.; " fermer doit sans d6lai : lo. Convoquer, k une de ses 

,, !^" sf'dnceB, par ayis public, Ijes oontribuables intferessfes dails 

- . '^■■' . " I'ouvrage projet6..., 2o. Nommer uu surintendaut 

/ " sp«'ciar cjiargfe de visiter les. lieux mentionnfis dans la 

" resolution 0u la requfite et faire rapport ...,...." 

Cet alrficle ne pent cerfainement pas s'interprC'ter de 
manierc k conf(E^rer aux c^nseils municipaax, le droit d'im- 
poser a un individu, des obligatitbns speciales que la loi et 
. ' lb Code municipal mettent' a la charge de ses voisins, an 

AfTranchissant ceux-ci de leurs servitudes l^gales, et en 
aggravant la position du propri6taire patticulier et en lui 
causant des dommages considerables. 
Ramhay, J. {diss.) : — 

I am of opinion that the judgment of the court below 
s|iotild be reversed. ' , 

The judge in the court below seems to have been under 
the impression that the water-course had been made across 
Reburn's land td avoid making it in the line between 
Pi Ion and Larente's land. But there wa8\no obligation 
to carry away Athe water of the upper part of a land by 
its line drain. /JThe obligation is to suffer the water to be 
drahied off at the lowest level, and keeping this in view 
V the council has a right to locate a water-course in such 

a way as not to aggravate the s'ervitudei In this case 
there is no question of an aggravation of the servitude to 
which respondent's land is subject. His pretentions are 
contradicted by the surveys, and so far as I oan unde^ 
stand the evidence, the water-course seeins to be made in 
the most advantageous manner for the respondent; and 
in addition to this he has been assessed so as to leave 
him npt the sioallest room for complaint. \ 



w. 



\> 



^Jt'l 






'./^■'-•i y"» ,t»^r5^fTrvKi"*'"-' "^tlff^' 



Court of queen's bench. 



207 



the court below 



Tkssier, J. :— ,jg4 

L'intira6 Robuni a 6t^ attaqufi par bcb trois voisins qui *t,S.'iSi„^,";,'" 
voulaient changer un cours d'oau naturel passant sur sa i-mSrSi 
terro. Pour ohtenir co rfesultat, ces derniers so sont adress6 w. a 'uZ 
m conseil municipal, qui, sur leur demande, a fait verba- 
liscr le cours d'oau et Pa change do maniore A fairocouler 
uue plus ^jinde quuntilfe d'euu sur la terro do Rebum, et 
a rinonder on partio. Malgr6 la resistance de Reburn, 
qui en a appoh- d'abordau conaoil municipal et ensuite i 
la Oour de Cinuit, \^oa-:<-v(rhal a 6t6 confirm6 et homo- 
logu6. ^ ■ ^ . 

UdessU8ReburnaJntont6la pr^sente action dans la 
Cour Sup^rieure pour faire annuler co jn-ocis-verbal, et son 
action a 6t6 maintenue pour le motif que le conseil muni- 
ctpaln'avait pas dejuridiction pour ordonner le change- 
ment d'un cours d'eau. C'est \k, me parait-il, la question 

que nous avons A. decider dans cette cause. Le conseil 

municipal a-t-il le droit de d^tourner un cours d'«au natu- 
re] ? Peut-6tre aurait-iLce droit ert indemnisant le pro- 
>ri6taire dtf terrain travers6 par le cours d'eau; mais il 
.1^6 parait certain que le conseil ne pent pas le faire sans 
offrir une indemnity. Les articles 501, 602 et 603 de notre 
pode Civil contiennent notre droit sur cette matidre. Ces " 
iicles ne font que dfeterminer les droits respectifs dfes 
irticuliers dont, les propri6t§8 somt travers^es par des 
cburs d'eau n^tijrels, et leur permettent de s'en servir A la ' 
charge de rendre I'eau, k la sortie di^'fonds, A son . 
cojurs ordinaire. Le propri6taire 8up6rieur ne pent rien 
faiVe qui aggrave la servitude du fonds infferieur. Ces 
precipes g6n6raux 5>nf 6t^ jfusieurs fois af»pliqu6s et 
lUdstr^s par les dfici^oAs de uos cours, et I'op pent con-' 
sullier U-dessus les arrets citfis dans le Code Annot6 de 
M. de BellefeuiUe sous I'articl^ 503. Je neVnse pas que 

le cdnseil municipal puisse enfreindre ces principes fonda- 
menkux. Le conseil pent, il est vrai, redresser ou r6gu- 
laris^r-un cours d'eau, mais pas le d^tourner et le changer 
tout 4 fait. II est bien constate par la preuve et par le J 
procei-verbal cit6 dans le jugement de Son Honneur M. ' 

le Juie Papineau, que les voisins 4e Reburn out pn^sentfi • 






i : 



■■M 



'31 









ITi. 






208 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



MM. 






— N 



IV'.'i 



leur roqu<^te an consoil dans le but 'de se dfibarrawier do 

i*(;on.. d«i» I'eau qui so trouvait but leur terrain ot do la jotor Bur celui 

{louiaoTilN. do Ueburn. 11 y a dans ve proces-vorbal non Bealement 

w. A. itobum. do8 irr6gularit<>i9 mais uno injustice conBidfirable, et pour 

toutos ('08 raisons jo Buis d'opinion do confirmor le ju^e- 

mont qui I'a mis do c6t6. 

Crosh, J. : — ' s 

■ Pilon and Reburn own neighbouring farms running 

parallel from south to north where they strike the lino 
of tho- Grand Trunk Railway not exactly at right angles, 
tho lino of tho, railway trending slightly northward 
H8 it passes from west to east adjoiuingr the north end 
of the farms. Laronte is Pilon's neighbour to the south 
and Meloche Reburn's neighbour ^o the north. The 
general incline of the land is towards the railway, 
although it is not uniforn^ly so. At a considerable dis- 
tance, probably over 400 yards from the railway, there is 
a depression and an ancient somewhat imperfect ditch 
running across the farms parallel or nearly so to the 
Gh-and Trunk Railway. This ditch seems to have crossed 
the farms of Reburn, Pilon and Larente, having it^ 
origin in the last mentioned land with probably a slight 
^ accession from the land of Sauve, a neighbour still fur- 

ther south. The level of Reburn's land bping the lowest 
it naturally received water from his neighbours to the 
south, l^ut this ancient ditch or water course brought no 
great flow of it, t^nd it was probably dried up reason- 
ably early in spring. "What water crossed Reburn's land 
by this depression or ditch would pass down Reburn's 
eastern line and find exit , by a discharge which had its 
■* exit eastward from his line at some distance from the 

line of the railway. Reburn had made some progress 
towards filling up this declivity in his land and objected 
to Pilon's"water continuing to flow on his, Reburn's, land 
through this depression. Pilon and his neighbour La- 
rente thereupon joined in a petition to the Parish Council 
to have a water course verbalised to carry off the water 
coming through this depression. The Gouncil appointed 
• Mr Brunet Notary as special superintendent, who visited 






6barra88er de 
jut^r Bur cehii 
)ii laeolement 
able, et pour 
•mor ie juf?e- 



iirms Tuiming 
itrike the lino 

right augles, 
y northward 
ho north end 
r to the south 

north. The 

the railway, 
sidcrablo diu- 
Iway, there is 
iperfect ditch 
rly so to the 
) have crossed 
e, having it^ 
bably a slight 
hour still fur- 
ng the lowest 
hbours to the 
30 brought no 
ed up reason- 
Reburn's land 
3wn Reburn's 
ivhich had its 
ance from the 
jome progress 
1 and objected 
Kebnrn's, land 
leighbour La- 
Parish Council 

off the water 
acil appointed 
it, who visited' 






r" 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



209 



the locality and reported in favor of opening a water m 

course of a suitable depth. It was to be made deep 'f <'-',.. .i. u 

.•aough to drain Rebum's land, but not to a depth below £'""'*'""'•' 

the water course already verbalized across the farmsw-Iut 

through the depression in question until it reached 

Rebum's southern line, when in placn of continuing 

across his land it was to follow the line between him and 

Tilon until it en<;ountered the railway ditch along which 

it was to pass eastward to Roburn's northern line, then 

rioutiiward on the line hetw.'en him and Meloche uiiUl it 

found exit by the water course already verbalized, into 

which Reburn's water coming from the Houth had its 

exit. Two considerable affluents from the south were at 

the same time verbalized to fall into and to form part of 

the water course in question. The work of opening this 

water course was distribj^ed, a-moderate proportion being 

imposed upon Rebum. This proems verbal, with a not very - ' 

material amendment, was homologated notwit%ftiding 

a strenuous opposition by Reburn who appealed to the 

County Council and then to the Circuit Court with«)ut 
success. The water course so verbalized wa« at least for 
the most part constructed, and had the ^Iffect of flooding 

Reburn's land to a considerable extent in one field and to 
a less extent in another locality. , . 

Reburn thereupon brought the present action against 

the parish municipality, Complaining that, on account of 

the levels the procis verbal in question could not be 

executed, that it flooded his fields, greatly augmented the 
flow of water upon his lands, and aggravated to a serious 
extent the natural servitude to which his land was liable. 
He therefore claimed that it' should be set aside, and that 
damages should be awarded to him for the injury he had 
sustained in the flooding of his fields. 

The municipality met the action by a plea that the 
proci^s verbal had been made in eopformity to the require- 
ments of the law and had been confirmed, notwithstand- 
ing Reburn's appeal to the County Council and to the 
Circuit Court ; that the water course was of public benefit 
andthe municipality wer^ bound to have it opened for 

Voiw*!. Q. B. ^ 14 




■'M 



m 



S.'> 



iir i 



210 



"V" 



MONTRKAI. t.AW IlKmRTR 



IMU. 



I,'' '■ 



II 14 
k * ■ 



,X^ 






'ih' 




the benefit of thoMo ooncernfiU, and ha<l at;tod within thi'' 
'f«n'Z;«''rii" iJmitH of their' juriudiction, tuid had caUHtnl Itt^lmrn ii»> 
Boui^hTull. dnmago; that if wat»»r reniaintnl on hi8 proi)erty ho had 
w. A. It«i)um himHolf to blame, a« h«! rould force the railway to mako 
their ditchoH sulR«i«'nt to «arry it oH", mid they, the mu- 
nicipality, could «ot, but they had notified the railway 
to make the n('(!eH8ary work. <r 

It appears ])y the proof that the railwiiy authoritieH ob- 
jected to the ;/rwr«i.« u^rhnf and maintained that any work 
done by Ihem would be ii^eleHS, the execution of the 
/trtM-tfi verbal to lM»\!jrective, being impoKHiblo on accmuit 
of the levelH. Two of their engineers wt»re examined 
— - — and gave their opinion to thin effect. Plans were al^o 
produced with profileM of the comparative levels of dif- 
. feront parts of the ground, among othern on«( showina; 
the grade on the line betwtH'n Pilon and Roburn fioni tin* 
<mtrance of the water cotirse until it met the Grand 
Trunk Railway at the northwestern angle of lleburn's 
faim. " This plan Hhowed that thejaiid rotn*, from the eji- 
trance of the ditch for some distance, then gradually d 
clined to a very depressed level, when it agoin grifiduair 
rose until it reai;hedv^the railway ditch at the northwest 
angle of Reburn's farm, so that a diti^h of considerablf 
depth at both endw of this grade would be insulKciont to 
prevent the water overflowing into Reburn's field at the 
centre of this space. 

The corporation, among other evidence, produced an 
elaborate plan of Reburn's land, showing the water 
course with cart^fully prepared levels taken at various 
points following the water course along Pilon's line, 
through the Grand Trunk ditch to the north«'ast angli> 
of R«'burn's farm, where it waw presum<'d to join a wjitor 
course running southward betw<M'n Reburn and Melocho, 
until it found an <'xit through a discharge at a moderate 
distance from the rail\yay running northwards octoss the 
Meloche farm. By these levels it would appc^ar that 
there' was sufficient declivity down the Reburn and 
Pilon line to <arry water from the entrance of the din- 
c.harge on the Reburn farm to the Grand Trunk Railway 



r- 



at a inbdoratc 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



All 



dU«h at tho iiorthwo«t linfflo. bat th« Bnrfa<,o lov«l« «t — 
thM UnprMHHrd l«<.ttlity wMro probably takmi on th« top of u «'..n.. -i. u 
th. .■mbankmemt thrown up in nmking th. ditch, and tB& 
.... ground Jurthor ^ant wa.. depn.««od b«low th. loyoIwTt t 
-f tho d.tch ijt thirf locality, NO that the wa^r in t^,,"'"*--'"- 
•spring fn.Nh.>t« Howo«l oyer the .»nibankmont and fl<K)de.l 
^ 'J<'»»U''»'h lund to a ronHidi^rabl.. extent in thin lotuility 
The lovolh in the Grand Trunk <lit.h were h.wer thnmgh. 
out thiiir where the water .umrne diwiharged into it the 
Hurluee of the land waH nlightly more depreH«od at the 
»«»rth\^eHt angh, than at the northeaHt angle, but wiih 
iiiore"d|pn.NHed i^t the centre between thene two pointH 
""•*»*'*» ft" ••«t"«it that here in Hpring frenhetH there 
wii»v liu-^overriow on to Ueburn'n land. TK« bottom of 
the d»fch leading from the northeant angle up Meloche's "' 

hne waH only v.^rified at the ,K>int of immediate exit 
Irom the Grand Trunk Railway ditch. At the point ho 
■v.»rilied It Hhowed a level a lew cfntinm of a foot lower 
than tho lowest level oC Ueburn'h land oppoHite the de- 
pn'HHion ooourring in Reburn'8 w«'8tern line betweeif him 
^ and Meloche. » • 

The Superior Court by its judgment annulled tho 
//rm'« verbal, but refuHed Reburu any damages on tho 
gro^ind'that he had not adduced proof of any speciOc 
'aiAouut. " . I ' 

RebuTu "inscribed the case in Review, but the court 
there confirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. 

The municipality now appeal from the judgment of 
the Superior Court setting aside the by-law. 

One of the consid^ants of the judgment was a quota- 
tion from Mr. Brunet, the superintendent's, proc^, verbal 
which stated that the cours Weau in the sec'ond and third ^ 

ttrti.aes of the jn-ocis verbal, viz., tho affluents above men- 
tioned, were to be made by Larente and Pilon who had 
OKked them, m order to exempt themselves respectively ^ 
rom the work of making a line ditch between their 
lauds, which was far from being impossible to make. > 
it may be remarked that the water course in questL 
was not asked for by any notable part of the inliabitaite 



• 
■ 



>» 



■V 



iSSSBL 

i 






9 



912 



MONTRKAL LAW KKIttttTS^ *' 



1 



,y 



h 

I- 



Tf 



■■, 



m. 



tm 



S3 



of thu pRrinh, MxA would Appear tcy hnvo Himmi mthor «n 
*tIp.1L''a«''* <'«|M'<li<'til to avoid Ihf iH'tvBuity tif mukiliK lii"' dit< ht^ 
&'ruM.''TiX than a iiiatt.T of any vi'iu'ral puWio utility, or of utility 
W.A. Kabuni to any rojiJtiilfiahlf UlUillxx / 

A diillrulty 1 havo «>K|H'i'i*'»<-yii in tluM «'un(> Im troui tho 
fA«t of itn ht'iu>( within the Mtrihut,»»H of th»« muniri- 
palitit'H to niako liy-lawn for tlwf- o|h>uiik of water rourHCH, 
nnd thf ront|ilaiiianl in thi/«aN<> nasMn^ fX^^niMfd hiN 
riiorht of appeal. Slumld not tho n-nult !»•• «onHid«'r»'d 

I final an«l fou« luniv*' aw reaanlH him f The rourt have 
coni'|iult>d tlial it Khoufll nni b<' ho in a caHi- like the 

j pr«'H<<ul. It in truf that »Wf particN may hi «-on< hulcd as 

I to anything that ariHOH nJloWw rrj^ularity of the inakinur 
of the /»rorV« wrW, hut i/ the municipality hav«' miwle a 
jtrw^if verhtU to doNometning whiih in in ilMelf rdutrary In 

V law, a party injureil nmiHt have u l«*iral remetly to wet it 

I aHidt'. / 

' In thi8 caHe it in nmnifeHt that the «arrying out of the, 
Itroci^s verbal would Weutly aj^gravate the Hervitude whu'h 
Relmrn'H land would have to Ih'ar l»y bin land b'ling 
loWer. than that of/hiH neighbourH. It would <»blige him 
to reieive a larg«'ly augmente<l flow of water ty which 
he waH not previouMly liable, a great part of ^hieh, at 
leant, Mhduld be earrit'd oil by a lint^ diteh betW«'«'U his 
two neighbojUH to the south, and would, aH v/ill be wen 
by furtlwr examinati<m, Hood and deteriorate a eouHider- 
able portion of his laud without the poHnibility of a dis- 
charge from that water. It will lie olwerved that JMr. 
Beaudi;y'8 figures Hhow the level of wmie partM of the 
Hurface of Kebufn'M land opposite the water eouTHe in its 
approach to thc^ northwest angle of hiH farm to be below 
the Ifvel of the bottom of the water couthc' at that lo- 
cality, coHHecpulitly ho long uh water flows in thc< courw 
, thcj^o, Rebarn''s adjoining Held will be inundatcid to a 
level correHponding with the Hurfaee of thc> water in the 
water c^ourm' there, and although th«' h'Vel of tho bottom 
(rf the discharge from the ditch of the Grand Trunk at 

-^. tho northeast angle may be a few ventimes of a foot below 
* tho level in the depressed part of^ Reburn's laud, yet the; 



eT^^ — ■ ' 1 ^^ 

m '■ ' - ' ' €■--■■. 



'% 



t 



^' 









M 



COURT or QUKKN'H ^BUOL 

«li«tiinie botwiM.n th.. two points in tw cowidornWiHH. '•♦ 
iiiiik** tho Hiiiull .Ufr-roniv in tho I.-vvJ •portti* m an '?/'7' •%'• 
.•ffiu'tiv.'' drnilmK... O.i th.. .ontrary it \h niunifM^tly h^- £7BA 
-ullcWit, hooHUHM t« drain thin lo^^ part of Ilohum -ir.X.U^. 
ma It would j.o non.MHary to.ut at U'mi a Hhallow dmin, 
th.' bottom of whi.h inuHt ImJ IhN.w thot..v.«l of th.? IkH- 
torn of tJu. ditch at tho north.uMt anglo «« indiratt^d hy 
Mr. H».audry. A^ain Mr Braudry hah not v.riflod th.. 
1<'V..I Hav.» at th.. imm.'diat.. uxiU«f thiN dit.h. without 
folL.wniK 't up to th.. iMkfnt wh..ri. it Mhould hav.» «tif by 
th.. diH.harff.. runniuK <'ttHtward, and although h.^ Hayn 
h.. Haw th.^ wat..r running in that diroi-tion, thii wan 1^ ^ L 
probably back wat.r IVotn i... oliHtruction or ov.'rflow of 
the Grand Trunk dit.h.'H in .arly Hprinff. It Would H.M.ra 
.•xtra..rdinary although not impo^iJiblo that thin diH.harg.. 
Hh.)uld H.TV.. to .arry nil' th.^ wat.-r . oming down M«. 
Io<h.. H lin.. from th.. Houth and Horv.^ th.* Honff^purpone 
Tor th.. wiit..r .oming up m it w.»r.* from th« north This 
* IHunt might b.. low.T than th.. land aw w.dl to th.* north * 
ON to tho south, but thoro w no explanation of it and it 
iH H Hingular .inumHtanci* that Mr. lUiuudry Hhould have 
lUd.^d to verify tholov.d h.^rc. It whh .orrHotly obsorvod 
that th.. gr..at<.r d.-pth of tho Grand Trunk dit.-h-would * ' ' 
inuko nothing for or against K.d)urn'8 ci««, b(^cauHe if the 
K'velH admitted of tho water coming to R«*burn boing 
diH.harg,.d through th..,..xit dit.h at the north.^ast a^igle 
th.. gr.'at..r d.'pth in th.* Grand Trunk ditch would but 
ntum a quantity of water at a Iow.t l..vel, thpt although 
n(H .arried off could not r.^tuni upon Reburn's land. The 
ov.M-flow at tht. cntre point of the Grand Trunk, ditch ct 
• ould not be .omplained of by Reburn after the water 
M\ to a level below the bottom of the ditch at -the northr 
ottNt angle, but up to that point, Ri'burn luid reason ilso 
to complain of that overflow. On the whole it is ap- ' 
4)arent that the execution of the jtrocis verbal in question ^ 

%u8t operate a serious detriment to Reburn by aggravat- 
ing his position, and that the remedy awarded him by 
th.^ judgment of the Superior Court is just and justified' 
by law. Thi» Court therefore confirms that judgment. ^ ^ 




i. 



^ 



^ 



^Wr^ 



<*^ 



€ 



m:;^^ *" 



« 

214 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



t 




^^ Judgment confirmed, Ramsay, J., rfiM. 

Saint- Pierre ^ Scallon for the appellant. 
^ Laflamme, Huntington, Laflamme <y Ridwrd for the 

*^"^''™- respondent. '^ 

(J.K.) 



Lii O^Mrp. do Ik 
PuniiRBu fie 
Sle-Aiino<iii 
Uout tlo V<U\e 



^ Dec. 9, 1884. 

Coram Dorion, C.J., Monk, Rambay, Tessier and 
Cross, JJ. 

JOHN BLACK et al. ~ ^ 

{Defts. in the Court below,) 



AVD 



Appellants; 



^ ALEXANDER WALKER, 

{Plff'. in the Gomt beUywY; 

■■' '' --.-^ Respondent. 

'. ■ • '■":•'■• 

, Simulateil deed— ^Action of third j)arty. 

l{eitl«Hlato ivstiuiatod to 1)V worth tilMmt $1200 \v;i8 8ul(l \m u jiurHon witli- 
"(oiit latniiLs, for ii foiiHitlorutioii Ktated in tlie deetl to ])o $3,650. No 
iiioncy Wiiu i)iii<l, and tlio vundors reuminiMl in T^WHOHHiuu. Tlu- 
vendoo oxceuttid u <letHl of .obligation and hyimtliec in fav«)r of tin- 
vtMidorH for the luipaid instalments. Two of UieHO iiiBtuliacntti, 
*" amounting \a> $2,000, were "subsecjuently transferred by the vendon* 

to'W. in jiayment of gixxls. ' 

Hkld: — That tlie sale of the projieriy and the obligation aud hypothe<<^ 
in favor of the vendors beiiijp simulated and fraudnlent, W. w«m 
entitled to have the deed of ob}igalion and hyiwthec Aroiii the vendeti 
" to the vendors set aside m regards him (the vendee b^ing a party to 
the suit), and to ask that Ihe vendors be condemned to inyfor the" 
goods as his {lersonal debtors. ^ 

The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, 

Montreal (Torrance, J.) in favor of the respondent. %!e 

5 Legal News, p.^415, where the judgment of the lower 

- Court is reported. ^ 

'^ The following was the text of' the judgment' appealed 

froin: — 



H \ 



-L, 



.1 




■;•■;-. \ -\ :. ' -■ .-. :: ^''h- : :< ■, ■■■■•- 

COURT OF QtjfiElfS BENCSa. 01 A 

• -• '%. . - . ' , . - 

•' The court, etc. - • * 

" Cousideriiig th^it plaintiff, in Majr, ISfO, sold and deli- 
vered to the defendants Johii Blank and Henderson Black, 
at Montreal, goods to the amount of and of the value of 
$191)8.05 currency, and in payment thereof did transfer to 
plaintiff accepting thereof a "hum,, of $2jp00 due to them 
by Th6odore Itoy under an obligation, of date 15th April, 
1879, for $3,000-; 

" Considering that the consideration of said obligation 
was a sale by John Black and Henderson Black to said 
Theodore Roy of land in th^t City of Montreal, for the 
nominal consideration of $3,650, under deed of date 16th 
ApriUstO; 

"Considering that the real value of said land was much 
under $2,000, and said Theodore Roy was a man without 
iiaeans and insolvent to the knowledge of said John Black 
and Henderson Black ; " • 

" Considering that said Th6odore Roy never paid any 
money for said deed to him, never entered into possession, 
but the said John Black and Henderson Black continued 
to deal with the said property as their own after the date 
of the deed to s^id Theodore Roy ; ^ 

" Seeing that the deed of sale of date 16th of April, 
18'79, from the said John Blaclf and Henderson Black to 
said Theodore Roy, and the oWigation from said Th6odore 
Roy to said John Black and Henderson Black, were simu- 
lated and fraudulent ; 

" Doth declare that the deed of obligation and hgpo- 
theque from the, defendant Theodore Roy in favor of the 
deiendants John Blat^k and Henderson Black, executed at , 
Mpntreal, belwe Perrault, notary, on the l$th day of- 
^ptil, 1819, was and is fraudulent and Simulated, and doth 
s^t aside the smme as regards the plaintiff: doth further, 
declare that the said defendant yh6oddre Rby in granting 
the said obligation and hppothique and in accepting notice 
of the tran8%r of a part thereof to plaintiff; acted simply _ J 
as the agent and ]pr«e-«oOT and for and on behalf of the 
defendants John Black and Henderson Black; and doth 
condemn the defendt^ts John Black and He nderson BWlr 



1884. 

Bluok ot al. 

Walker. 



^ 



i: 

I 



■mSM 



g, f 



216 



MONTREAL LAW KEPORTa 



1884. 

Black Gt al. 

Walker. 



Ii' 




• M 






ii>« 



['' 






«»•<»••'« 












i"»»">ki« la 




- 


K 




^K 





! . 



jointly and severally to pay and satisfy- to the plaintiff 
the said sura of $1,998.05, with interest fronji the 18th day 
of May, 1881, day of service of process, and costs of suit, 
distraits, " etc 

The facts' are fully stated in the opinions of the judges 
in appeal. It mavj^e remarked, 'however, that the con- 
demnation in the judgmeM cited iabpve follows th^ con- 
clusions of the declaration. 

C. A. Geoffrion, Q.C, for the appellants. 

L. N. Benjamin, for the respondent. — ~ 

Cross, J. {^dissentiensy.— 

Walker, a wholesale merchant at Montreal, sued the 
firm of J. & H. Black, dealers at St. Johns, and Th6odore 
Koy, a trader in Montreal, representing^ that he, Walker, 
had been in the habit for several years of selling goods to 
J. & H. Black in exchange lor properties and had confi- 
dence in them; that in May 18t9, they proposed to buy 
goods from him to the amount of $3,000, representing t6 
him that they were owners of a hypothec of $3,000 given 
to them by Koy, payable by yearly instalments of $1,000 
each as the balance of the^ price of real estate on which 
Roy had paid $300 ; that Roy was a man of means' and 
had other jiroperties ; that relying upon these reiyesent- 
ations he sold them goods to the amount of $1,998.05 aiid 
act epted in payment a transfer of the two first instalmeuts'^ 
of said hypothec or obligation, the same being transferred 
to him by deed before Marler, notary, of date the 5th of 
M{^y, 1879, said obligation being dated t^^e. 15th April, 
1879 ; that Roy was a stranger to Walker, was not pre- 
sent at the ^ixecution of the transfer, but was afterwards 
brought by J. & H. Black to accept it in Walker's absence. 
That Roy was simply a prite-nom of J. & H. Black and in 
the sale of the property mentioned in the hypothec froin 
J. & H. Black to Roy, executed before Simard, notary, on 
the, 16th April, 1879, Roy was falsely and fraudulently, 
represejited to have paid th^ sum of $8,800 in cash for the 
property,' and when the goods were purchased and the 
transfer made, it was by J. & H. Black' represented that 



■ 'if f I 



OOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



217 



Roy had paid $800 on aL-fount, whereas he had never paid 
any money whatever on account and the property had 
always remained in the possession of J. & H. Black who 
leased it and «ollected the revenues. The sale vvras false 
sliid simulated and made for the purpose of enabling J. & 
H. Black to disiwse of the obligation and to dedeivc^ under 
pr(^ten«e that the property had been sold, they knowing 
thai Roy had no means, and to defraud "Walker had,'bn the 
day before the execution of the sale, caused Roy to ex^cUte 
the obligation whereof part had been so transferred to 
Walker, and immediately after the transfer Roy had l^ft 
Canada. That J. & H. Black hiad also caused a fictitioiis 
price to be inserted in the deed whereby they had acquired 
the property from one Proulx. j 

i By reason of which allegations Walker drew the infer- 
ence that he had a right to recover from J. ^ H. Black 
the vahie of the goods he had sold them, 
r By a second count Walker claimed that he was entitled 
to claim from J. & H. Black, the two first ins^lments of 
the obligation transferred to him, "on the ground that Roy 
was a jtrMe-mm kn^as such the mere agent of J. & H» 
Blkk. . ^ 

/By a third count it was claimed that the sale from J. & 
H. Black to Roy, and the obligation and hypothec from the 
latter to the former, were a concerted fraud concocted be- 
tyveen J. & H. Black and Roy to deceive and defrau^ the 
public and whoever they might be able to imjwse upon; 
that no money or value ever passed from the One to the 
other, and J.' & H. Black remained in possession of' 
the property and collected the revenues. That at the 
date of the obligation and at the date of its transfer J. & 
H. BJack promised and agreed to pay the amount of th^ 
two first instalments and to hold Roy free and harmless 
therefrom. Whence Walker inferred that he had a right-; 
to have it declared that Roy was &pr^te-nom and that the 
debt pretended to be due.by him was really due bv J. & 
H. Blacki* .. -> 

I'he declaration contained a further count in assump- 
tU^ior goods so l d a n d dft lJ Yftred ^p . tO t h e a moimt of 



18M. 
Blsok et al. 
Walkt 



k«r. 



■m 



HtMMHgfljgj^ 



%iiv*( 



V 



■^& 



i ;*(-;: 



m 



218 



MQNTREAll LAW REPORTS. 



1884. 

niMk «t ki. 

k 

Walker. 



m 



111' 









«i«'«i.«* 


»i 




< 






%' 


fW 
t 





|2,000, and ronolnded thailthe obligation and hypothi^c 
from Roy to J. & H. Black Ihould bo doclarod fraudulent 
and simulated and Hhould V set aside as regards him, 
Walker ; that Roy, in grantilig the obligation and accept- 
ing notice of the transfer, iw^led as agent and prite^iunn for 
J. fef-H. Black, against whoin| a joijit^and several condem- 
nation was asked for $2,000. 

Walker produced an accouiSt oHhe goods he had sold. 
2nd. The- deed of sale from J.|&; H. Black to Roy, which 
^t is to be obserV(>d was madelwith promise " de garantir 
^de tons troubles et empdchelnents g6n6ralem"ent quel- 

jonques," rendering the vendlprs responsible for all prior 
incumbrances. 

8rd. T&e obligation and hyj 
Blact 

4th. The transfer froin J. &c 
with legal warranty and grantir 
the $2,000 oyer the remainder cb! 

Roy appeared but did not pled 
now appellants, pleaded to th^ 
acceptanoe of the bargain, Wlilkeill had made enquiries as 
to the valuer of the hypothec andl declared himself satis- 
fie!d ; that they had made no false Irepresentations or any 
other representations than those cclitained in the transfer, 
which were true"; that Roy was n(! 
said deeds fictitious. 

From the representation so made 
if he really showed any grievanc 
applicable, would have been the annulling of the bargaiik 
between him and J. & H. Black, in so farr' as to set aside 
the transfsr and leave Walker free to obtain judgment for 
the value of the goods sold by him ; but for this purpose* 
he would have required to abandon the values transferred 
to him, as he could not both have the value of his goods 
and rettun the consideration he had obtained for them ; 
oV perhaps he might have been allowed to retain and give 
•credit for the values transferred to him and cla^m judg- 
iaent against J. & H. Black for the surplus, that is in what 
ihe value ^of the securities transferred fell short of the 



thee ftom Roy to J". & H. 



Black to Walker made 

priority to Walker for 

liiig to J. & H. Black. 

J. &"H. Black, the 

effect that before the 



a pr^te-nom, nor were 

)f his case by Walker, 
the remedy, if any, 



~ price of the goods. 



«• 




•^j<^^"t^^}-:^-\\- ■ \ ■ " * "~^ "W* fe'''f/'^'^'s*T~^Ayp''^— Tv.^TwZ'tf^ (y^ t;^j i) faa ry^ •'^^'^^Ty^r . 



OO0RT OF QUEEN'S BENCa .^ ^ 219 

He should Wther have affirmed the transfeir and in 
addition claimM judgment for an amount to the extent' 
of the cheat alleged to have been practised upon him, or 
he should'have repudiated and abandoqe'd the tran^jfef and 
asked judgpnem for the value of the goods sold,. X * 

The transfer waa the only instrument he had a legal 
right to compiaih of, and that by the judgment has been 
left still existingland irttact. As between J. & H. Black 
and Roy he had no right to question 'transactions which 
they hiid concluded eu^ between themselves, save in so far 
as they might haVe b^n us^ as a screen to conceal the 
true value of the securities ttansferred, and that would Istill 
be coming back to a complaint of being defrauded as to 
'the values transferred. ' 

He has nowhere! complained of the insufficiency of the 
securities transferred, but only that the transactions be- 
tween Roy and J. k H. Black were not genuine. But this 
he had no right to do, seeing that J. & H. Black and Roy 
were by their agreement thereto precluded from/question' ' 
ing thtfse , transactions, and Roy was legally/ bound to 
Walker the «iame as he had been bound to J. & H. Black. 

It is not allegied that the deeds between Roy iand J. & 
H. Black, more particularly the sale of the property, was 
or were shown pr formed aiiy part of the representations 
which induced Walker ta agree to the bargain betwe<en 
him and J. &H. -Black ; .therefore any pretended decef)- 
tioii practisedlbetween Roy and J. & H. Blac^lhoald be 
kept perfectly distinct:and «an only attach to the quidity 
land. value of the securities thereby established. / '" 

The alleged deceptions conducing to the bargain be- 
tween Walker^and J. & H. Black were, first, that Roy had 
noj^paid as was pretended #300 on account of the prop- 
erty ; 2ndj, that Roy was! not. as had been represented a 
mah of meauEi having othler properties. Neither of these 
were sufficient to invalidalt^ the transaction bettreen Wf|kl. 
Ijer and J. & H. Black. ^The fact of |800 being receipted by 
the deed of purchase by Roy, oi' otherwise admiited to 
have been paid, whether true or false, mierely augniented 
Walker's security by d i mi n ighiag thw amniint fihaTg o nblo 



'* 



■am. 

Blaok et al. 

& 

Walker. 



m 



4 



:''aMpi 






:^: 



■4. 




220 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



BImIc at »L 

k 

Walker. 



P'i4 



^1 


it 
• • 


•I*N. 


■• 


<;. 


• 


sS 


ii 



l«ftt ««,>''-1«' 



5» 



6 m. 



f* 



on tht> property, and the fact of Roy being a man of moans 
of^a poor man wa^ not necessarily so material a .part of 
the consideration as to (conduce to the agreement which 
had for its basis a security on real estatv. It is not allogod 
that if these deceptions had not been practised, Walker 

/ would not have agreed to the bargain. • ' 

It is not alleged that Walker suffered any damage" or 
injury Iby the falsity of^the representations made to hin^ 
nor by ^reason of the deeds between Roy and J, & H. 
Black not being genuine. 

As to the proof, the first and the material point, the ohly ^ 

♦one that Could affect the, validity of the bargain between 

.' Jf& H. Black and Walker, was misrepresentatiqns by J. 
& H. Black to Walker "before or at the time of the agree- 
mi^t and transfer, and of «uch there is no proof, nor pf 
any representations whatever, save the statements cpii' 
tained in the transfer itseW and these ar^ all etriptly cor- 
rect. It is true that Walker himself says that Roy was 
represented to him as a man of means and as^ having p^id 
$300 on account of the property, but this cannot make 

■^evidence in his favor, besides being oppn to the objection 
of adding to, and varying a solemn deed or written instru- 
ment. /. 

There is no doubt of the faot.^nd it is fully established 
by evidence in the case, thajr the $300 receipted in Roy's 
deed as a payment on account was npt paid at the time, 
although provided for out of the revenues of the property, ' 
but it is not proved that a representation on the subject ■ 
was made before or at the time of the transfer, and iiad 
such proof been made, it is no(^ reasonable to conclude 
that it would have been sufiicient to ^nul the transaction. 
The same may l>e said of Roty being represented as ^ 
man 6f means; there is. no proof of such representation 

' prior to the transfek-, and had there been [^uch a represent- 
ation, it is extremely improbable that it would have had 
iCny influence ; there is no shadow of a proof, unless we 
ta^ Walker's own assertion, that either of these facts 
formed any inducement to the bargain between^!. & H. 
Blaok and Walker. - 






■u * 



> • 



->--7:-— ^^, 




-.^' 



'■.^. 



■^4^ ■^4^J|*S^'W*3f%-/if*M:B^3^ j-/,feR^4 



COURT OjF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



221 



ween^J. & H. 



1814. 

niMik at II 

Walker, 



I. 



I now conie to the xcjonsidoTation of wha;t^|^ff(^t;s t^e 
value, the miffitjioiicy or insuilicioucy of the B^t^nrities 
tnmsforredii and the hearing of thiH evidence, if any, on the 
validity of the agreement, and tjansfer hy -T & H. HIack 
to Walker. ' ' , " ' 

, And first, as, to. the deeds between J. & H. Black and ,' .^ 
Uoy bein^ simulated, the only evidence applicable i8«*lhai; 
oi" Roy and oT" "his hou' Charles H. Roy. T'hevfermer had an -' '^ 

interest in being relieved frofti bin liability to J. & H. ' *' I' 

I ■ lUack and took a partisan side witb Walker, as will btv 
s«*en by his letters written from New Haven, in Connecti. v 

tut, where he and his son had -gone to reside, apparently 
in answer to solicitations by Walker's agent ^hat he Should 
je^iur^ to Montreal to give efvidence against the' Blacks; ; 

and the latter had had a dispute with- the Blacks and was^ ' 
hostile to them. The former Kays that his son Charles H. ' ~_X 

Roy (presumably for th^ Blacks) asked him if he would 
buy i>roperty and he said : " I don't know. I said I would 
"if I got advantage to buy it." Again the Blacks asked me '• j 

if I would buy property, " I sayj yes, if I get it cheap enough 
"at advantage to buy." In crbss-examiipKttion he said he 
did not sign the deed for fhe purpose of benefiting the 
Blacks; he did not know whether it was for their benefit 
Qrnot. He signed' it for '.' an accommodation." At another 
place he says : " I bought the property on risk." He (one , ' ' ' 
of the Black's) told me if I could not pay for iti he would 
pay. He says if the property does not bring in Walker 
§2,000 so as to' pay his claim, we wilt pay the balance. . 

He also iEidmttted that he paid^nothing on account of the - * 
property, nor for expenses, n«r insurance. The Blacks 
offered to let Hiin collect the rents, but he told them to go 
on collecting. * 

Charles H. Roy's evidence igoes "to show that he was 
solicited by the Blacks to persuade his father to take a deed . . « 

of the property. The Blacks knew h^ circumstances and 
that he was unable to pay. They said they would assume ' ' * 

all liability for taxes and his father would never bei ' ,' - 
troubled about the property, also that the Blacks promised 
to seti^le with and pay Walker, after the latter had made a 
demand on his (fi. TT T?,Ay'«)f^t || ^^, > 



•« 



t '-A 



JIUMM 






If ■ V " * 



. UN. 

. A 

Wiilkcr. 



' I 

, I.I 



i 







'I 



f • f 






. \ 









:J^ 



222 



/ ■■\i ' 
MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



isn 



It is questionable ir this evidence proyes the Nimulation 
oftheduod, but if ho, it wuh as between Uoy and the BlackH, 
iiikI only, if at all, affected the valut! of the security tVang- 
ferred by J. & H. Black to Walker. It in certain that Walkor 
intended to acqept a hy[X)thec, not a property, and the 
tnyisfer to him was of a hyi>othi>c which Roy, the debtor, 
could i^pt repudiati'. If, therefore," Walker was at all dv- 
Ceivod, it could only be aw to the value of the property 
which stood as security for the hypothec, and on this point 
the answer to Walker's objection is conclusive. Walker, 
on l>eing i'xamined as a witness, admits that before accept- 
injjf the hypothec in payment for his goods, he went with 
one of the Blacks to visit the projwrty, also that he sent 
Mr. Brown, an experienced valuator in Montreal, to see the 
property and value it. He was therefore not deceived as 
to the value, and as he did not know Roy and had never 
seen hira, ho could not Have counted anything on his 
personal liability ; so little that he never took the trouble 
to enquire. If conceded that Roy's acceptance of a deed 
was simply to accommodate the Blacks, there was nothing 
vt^ry unfair in their putting the security they had in its 
most presentable shape. Real estate in that locality was 
at the time tinsaleable, unless at a very great sacrifico. 
Walker would not desire to have the trouble of seeing to 
the payment of taxes, leasing and repairs ; although willing 
to accept a hypothec that would give him little trouble, he 
would not likely be prepared to assume the duties' of a 
proprietor, and if the Blacks gave him a valid hypothec it 
was what he was likely to desire. On the direct evidence 
as to value there is a diversity of views, the estimates^ 
varying from about $1,200 to |2,500, but it is to be ob; 
served that those who give the low estimates indicate 
that they mean realisable cash value. It is shown that 
the property was assessed at $1,600 and at $1,800, That in 
Nov. 1877 the buildings on it were estimated by a regular 
insurance valuator at $2,Q82, that a house on it was 
rented at $13 per month or $166 a year; that it cost the 
previous owner Prouix from $8,000 to $8,500. Although 
Froulx is brought up to say that the j^ice mentioned in 







"'WWIF' 1 ™- ' f^,^ 



a)URT OP QUEEN'S 







/228 



hiH dee4 to the niacks was not the tljtio price, yet ho admits 
that th« Hale wns for goods, and it ^009 not appear what 
the goods amounted to, save by the|*i*!0 mentioned in the 
di'tKl. Property vurieH rapidly in VtUue, an over estimate 
or under estimate is no rau«e for dissolutio^i of a si»|e ; — 
C. C, Art. 1012. ■ -^i^^P^r/ ^ 

The pretention that Roy was i^6 f^ent or jn-^le-mm of 
the Blacks is a proposition w'holty -litntenable. He dealt" 
with th^em as a principijil, ho w^sp bound to them,. and 
they transferred hiB binding obligation to Walker ; were it 
^ even mere aoeommodation, he is still nevertheless equally 
bound. • f 

Put the worst feature on the transaction and admit for 
the' sake of argument that the sAlc to Roy was a scheme 
concerted by Henderson to take advantage pf a party to ; 
whom the security mfght be offered ; still the transition 
could only be complained of to the extent that it. was 
unfair ; the property, that is the hypothet;, was «t all evVuits 
of considerable value and was transferred. Walker should 
iu any event account for that value or repudiate and 
abandon it. I cannot see how ho can maintain the ano- 
malous position he has taken. I go further and say that 
there is no proof that he was deceived or that he suffered 
by any deception. The 6nly thing he could reasonably com- 
plain of was the insufficiency of the security transferred , 
to him, and this he had the opportunity of inspecting and 
j\j||giiiigf of for himself. He accepted of it knowingly and 
Hi^^ right to claim.' A vendor is not bound to warrant 
against vices known to the put chaser. It is a case where 
- the maxim cfiveat emptor may be fairly applied, nor is it in 
fait proved that the transferee,, Walker, was deceived as to 
value. I would reverse the judgment of the Superior Court 
and dismiss Walker's action. 

MoifK, J., also dissented, and concurred in the observa- 
tions of Mr. Justice Cross. >~ 

Ramsay, J. :— 

It is sought to recover from appellants the amount of 
their indebtedness to respondent for goods sold them by 
the respondent, and also to declare a certain deed of obli- 
a nd hypothec null and void by reaaon of fraud. 



m 

If: 



I St %l. 

Walk«r. 



- - ^ 9 




■mi. 






,• ■ I' 



■/-: 



^ 




224 



MONTREAL LAW KKK)KT8. 



if* 



It appeani that appellantii who wore in thi) habit of 
tl«>alin<]^ with roBponduiit, raado a purchaso from him to 
tho ainount of |2,()()0, and inducod him to take in pay- 
ment two instnlmentH of a debt duo th«m by ono Uoy, 
the dobt being aoeurod by an hy|)othec on roal estate in 
Montreal . , 

The fraud alleged iH thiH, that the Appollants made a 
8imulat(!d sale to Roy, an insolveni, for a false prico^hat 
in the dc«>d it was falsely declared that Roy had paid |800 
on account of the price, that the appellants had assureil 
_ ilBPHpondent that Hoy was a man of means, and that ho 
\lWul other property, that in fat;t he had no othor property. 
Only a part of this is established. It is not proved that 
app<>llant8 gave any warranty as to the condition of Koy, 
and it is clear they must have knowii he was insolvent, 
and the property was not of the vafne of the goods sold. 
Mr. Simard values it at ♦lj,80(>ioil 1,260, and Mr. Roy 
from i|l,()00 to $1,300. On .the othfer hand/ Mr. Trodel 
values it at |2,i<^, and Mr. Barr6 'at 1^2,400 or |2,600. 
There is a charge on 4t of s|400, so il the highest valua- 
tion it was not a suiKcient securitr. Appellants bought 
the property for $l,000,iind put the false price of $8,000 
in the deed, /it is also /also that Koy, the defendant, paid 
$300 on accoi nt of the price. W the absence of any spe- 
cial warrant ;, and if the contyact with Roy were real, 

dishonest, but it would 

more man tnis, tnat the appellants wanted 

house worth, $yij(>00, or thitt had cost them 

worth' $2,000/ and the- rule caveai emptor 



all this mig 
amount to ni 
to exchange 
$1,600 for g 



would appl 
lated, and gdt 
.which appe 111 
complexion o: 
got face to ixi 
other words t 
the insolvent 
rights. Has 



^4:ract, with Roy was simiu- 

>se of perpetrating the trick 

lally played, then the whole 

changed, and Mr. Walker has 

t^eal debtors, the appellants. In 

garants \)f Roy, and Roy, being 



alker, the latter can urge Roy'» 

succeeded in proving that Roy has jiny 

rights agoing ihe BJ^cks ? ^ It seems to me that the proof 

of simulatioii ii as/jperfect as possible. We have the posi- 



a)UBT or QUREfTS HENCH. 



2a« 



livrt t«i8timouy of Koy that ho was not to b« troubltnl. 

\VV havo th«> extromuly uiirmulid toMtlmony of Mr. Kou- 

(liTHoii lUiwk, iiovorthtOoHH h« lulmitM thnt ho gBV«s.a re- 

•ript to thiH porf.Mtly iiiHolviMit purrhuwur % #800, 4hi«4i 

K'oy wan to pay shortly, and which h« nover did pay. 

lUiuk HayN that thoy w((ro to km^p the property and «!oI- 

l.'< t tho nuitH in ordorto paf thomHelvoB this Hnmof'|800. 

ThiH arrangomont indi«;at«!H wondc^rful Hiinplicity on tho 

l)art of a«uto huHinoNH raon, who,# whon thoy soil real 

t'Ntato, tako tho troublo to diHcharjUfo tho hailleuir de fo'ndi 

ilaim taking an hyiwthoo instead, bo«auso, say thoy,- 

it iH moro oanily disposed' of than a prix de vetUe., Perhaps 

it may have occurred to Mr. Uondorson Black that this 

laodo of manipulating a title is not altogether justifiable. 

At all events he certainly would have distjovered if the 

Hale had been a bom fide one, that the rents, amounting to 

#1.'] a month, would hardly be security for the interest on 

*;{,000 at 8 per ct^t. — the interest %iounting to |240 a 

year, and tho rent to 1^166, from whici repoirs had to b*e 

deducted. 

Such paltry excuses confirm the suspicions already 
created by the first aspect of tho transaction. At all 
events wo have it fully established by one of the defen- 
dants, that the jdoed is simulated ^ to the payment, of 
$300, and that the appellants have always' remaiu«d in 
possession of the property as owners ever since tho sale. 
It is true the code, by a dogmatic utterance, declares the 
sale complete by the consent of the parties ; but the courts, 
notwithstanding art. 1472 CO., hold that this is to be un- 
derstood sub modo. One of the distinctions is that where 
the vendor remains in possession, fraud will bepresumed. 

Again, we have the evidence of Oharles Roy, as to 
the inducements to purchase by his father, and we have 
the testimony of Mr. Alderman Roy as to the attitude 
assumed by the Blacks. 

We have, therefore, positive testimony of the most 

conclusive kind that the deed of sole to an insolv6nt^ 

was to some extent simulated.., that no price waspaid,^ 

that the vendors remained in possession, that they nevet* 

You LQ.B. ■ IK 



IIN. 
wA«r. 



' *v1 




^4- 



^■JF^T^'' 



226 



MONTRKAIv LAWRRFOirm 




m 






MM. 
lUMk •« Hi. 

W»|litr. 






flttiiiiMd tlui prirM, but UMwJili>><^ *l«'«id ho ii((|uir(Ml for th«' 
purpom* of rnrryiiiK "Ui-JM+uiuluii.mit trick. To suHttuii 
Much pr<H'i<t>(iiii^M would l»«« ioiliHrrodit tlH< liiw by M«atiuu 
at di>liiiu«o llmM«i dirlutcN of rt'iMoti uiid rouimon mmuw, 
which muHl bo ut tho buitc olull HyHtuiuH of hiw. I luu U> 
cottfirin. 



DoRioN, C. J. :— 

I alHO think the judjifmont Hhould be 'ronHrm«*d. There 
iM, HO doubt, roii«i<U*rttbh! di(lii;ulty in (h«< «ii«u lut to tin- 
lorm of th« m tion. It uhIch thut the ol»Iigution from 
Roy to HItMk b« 8«t aside. This .eroated a go<Mi deni 
ofdifii<;uIty in my mind ; but when I eomf to examine 
the whole ciwe, I (ind thut the i^jpi'UantH attempted Id 

■ make a H(!tiliou8 Huh^ to I^^y, in order to <le«eive, and m 
Uoy iH miidu a parly to the cau»e, it is tomiH>tont to 
Walker to a«k that the trauHactiou Imj net anide. 1 do not 
look npou tluf i!UHe «h that oi" a cnwlitor using the action 

^of hi>< debtor, be<uuHe Walkor is not the «ireditor of Roy. 

^ It iff not ujkhi that footing that I rest the tilaitn of 
Walkor, but because he has been dweivtnl by this trauH- 
atftion into giving his goods for a property not worth half 
the value put uiwu it in the deed. i 

r--— . ■ " >^ ' 

Judgment of S.C. coufirmed, Monk and Cross, JJ., di8- 
'sen ting. ^, . - .' , 

Geofrum, Rinfret ^ Dorion for the Appellants. 
• L. N. Be/y'nmin for the Respondent. ' 

(J.K.) J 



'■:f' 



0' 
iih'- , 

W 



-.*» . ■ ■»■■■ 



^t 



1 '.r^ML ' 



H»:' 



. A 



/•! * . I 



• a)URT or QUEEl^W UEMCH. ' gfy 

Coram Dokion, OJ. Monk. Ramhay, Cuohh, Haby, JJ. 

.•I 

THIS QUKKNv. JOHN ROSS. 

/V/y«ry /,// irifmM in OvU S^U—l\i>du,ium of Ibn^d-^ 
MnttrialUy of Fmit .morn to A// />/eiidiwil— ."W-fla Vicf 
{Can), r: 2:\, h. 7-Mi/; 7Vw/ m,ler»i ujm Reserved Cw. 
in MuUemeanour. 

llKi,n:-l. Tl„, no„.,.n«li,.«l,„, l^y t|,„ pr.«.H-.,Hon. on » tritti fur iwHnry. 
of U.« nl«u «|,|.:h wai. IIUxl in IImmIvII nnit wl,..|«in tl.o ,l«f,m.l,,nt 1« 
ull.>»(.»d U. huvo glvon /ulm, Uvrtln.ony, i. not n.at.,riiil wl.«n. U.« 
.u«.l«nnu,nt of jmrjiiry l.iui no rofenuioi to tli« |,l«u.linK« ; l.nt t\m 
. .<fon.lpn». if 1,0 wml„«. ,,,ny, i„ ,.,^^ t,^e ,,u,u u, „„t pr,^|„ced, i.rovfl 
iMconUtntN by mM-un<lkry tiviilonco. 

•-•. It i« not «M.<.nti<il U> pnivo thut tlu. f«.!tM Mworn t.. by tho .l«f,.„.|«„t m * 
«l emnl in tl.o intllHtnont. w«re nmtoriul to tl.« Imuu lu tho cauno' In - 
which tiK) ilofi.n.lant wiw «xumlM«d. 

I!. A li«H,rv,Hl ^'m^ niuy U, «nuM..UMl at the roquoat of tii« .U»f«n.lunt 
tlwring tlu< aiKiitncnt th«r.H.n Imfow lh« full Court, hy adding the 
«<vl<l«n(^» tukon ut tho trial. 

I (Kollowin« I{,y. V. itniu, 2:» I. C. J. 327) A now trial .nay b« ordered 
on a Ko«<rvo<l Cajn., in miHth.rnottnourH, whoro it a|>|>oan tt. the 
( ourt on the ovidont-o thut an injuiitico may havo been done to ^ 
(loTondunL 

ltt!8erved Casu : , * 

;;Oii the 18th day of jfune instant, in the Conrt of 
Qu.'en's Bem^h (Criminal side), the defend^it, John Ross 
wiiN found guilty on a charge of Ptnjvry, captained in the 
following indictment :-*- 

"The jurors for our lady tho Queen upon {heir oath ^ 
prehent, that heretofore, to wit, at the Term of the Cirt^it 
Court holden for the District of Montreal, in the City and 
District of Montreal, on the 5th day of May, in the year of 
Our Lord 1884, before the Hon. F. &. Johnson, one of the 

I Judges of Her Majesty's Superior Court for Lower Canada, 

a n,rtain issue, in which one Samuel Edwards, of the City 
and District of Montreal, laborer, was plaintiff, and the 
Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a body politic Mid ^ 
coriwrate, was defend^t, in a certain action of damages 



■*' 



\ 



\ 



.^ 



nil 



;i 






.» • % 



# 

*?** 



1^1 it 

k 



■^0 



^ 



r.r., ■■■■ 


1 


T -It 


1 


" '' ■- ' >f-'' 


V 




1 


% 


? 


■', 


f- 


V 






,^-^,.^-™-r^ ;»?^W^f5*l^V 



w 






r.-.-i' 






.N^ 



V^i-T 



montm:al law reports. 



for breach of contract, bearing the number 8,694 of tho\^ 
records of Ihe said Cirtmit Court, wflfs tried, uiwn which \ 
triiil one Jolin Ross appeared as ft witness for and on 
behalf of the said Samuel lildwards, the said plaintifi', and 
was then and there duly sworn before the Hon, F. 0. 
Johnson, one of the Judges of Her Majesty's Superior 
. Court for Lower Canada as aforesaid- in the said Circuit 
Court, and did then and there, upon his oath aforesaid, 
falsely, wilfully and corruptly depose and swear in sub- 

'' stance and to'tho effect following : That he (the said John 
Ross) did not hiriB any men to work on board t^e steam- 
ship Alberta, and 'did not hire £d wards, (the saiid Samuel 
Edwards, the said plaintilf,) to work oi^board the steam- 
ship Alberta (to wit, a certain vessel so Uamep t lat lay in 
the Port of Montreal last fall, and'of which th^ said John 
Ross was sufj^Spsed to be the captain) ; whereas, in truth 
the said John Ross did hire jseveral men to work on board 

' the jsaid "Steamship Alberta in the month of November 
last, and did hire Edwards (the said Samuel Edwards, 
the said plaintiff,) to work on board the said steamship 

• Albertar on the 8th day of November, 1883, and the said 
John Ross did thereby commit wilful and corrupt perjury 
against the form of the statute,' etc. 

"Treffll, Lambntagne, Deputy Clerk of the Circuit 
Court,,Was the first witness examined for tie prosecu- 
:tion, aud^produced and proved the record in jfhe case of 
Edwards v. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in 
wlii^h the defendant was charged with having committed 
Ihe perjury for which he was tried. 

"After the writ and declaration had been proved and 
read to the jury, the counsel for the defence asked that 
the plea be also read to the jury, when the witness stated 
that the plea was not in the r^^cprd, and could not be 
found, although it appeared that a plea had been filed in 
the cause- 

"The defendant by his counsel immediately took 

t^xception to the production of an incomplete record, 
owing to the absence of the plea which was neither 
produced nor proved. ■; - . ' 



,<«V' 



A 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



I 229 

" I hov«5fiVer directed tliat the trial should be proceeded 
with. \ . 

" At \the close' of the^ oase*^ for the prosecution, the 
defendant submitted that there was no case 'to go to the 
jury : Isi Because the whole record in the cause in which 
the perjury charged was alle^d to have been committed " 
had not been proved. 2lid. Because it did not appear 
that the matter sworn to was material to the issue in the 
cause. .^ 

" I ruled "against the defendant; who entered upon his 
defence, and the jury returneda verdict of g^iZ^y. 
r "The defendant then moved that the verdict be set 
Jasi^e, and a new trial ordered, on the following grounds: 

*^8t. Because the said verdict wa» rendered contrary 

to the evidence givenfon the trial. ^ - 

* "2nd. Because at the trial the record of the case 
of Edwards v. Tfie Canadian Pacific Railway Companff^ 
was not produced and proved in a complete state, the 
said case being the case set put in the indictment as the 
case wherein issue had been joined, wherein the alleged 
perjury was^ committed, the plea filed by the defendant 
not having been in the said record and aot having-been 
proved on the said trial. > ( ^^ 

•*^3rd. Because the facts setlput in the assignment of 
perjury in the said ihdictmealfri this ^as^ were not facts, 
matters or things re^ujrod or authorized bj^any act or 
law now or at any^ time in force i^ the Dominion of 
Canada or in the Province 'of Quebeij, to be verified, or 
otherwise assured or ascertwned by or upon oath, affirma- 
tion, declaration or affidavit of some or any person "in 
the said case of Edwards v. T/te Canadian t'^dfU^ RaUwa^ 
Companif, set out in the said indictment, wherein the 
•perjury charged is alleged to have been conimitted by the 
said defendant. "" 

"4th. Because the .facts, matters and things contained 
ni the assignment of perjury set odt in the said indict- 
ment were not facts, matters or things required or author- 
ized by any law or act now or at any time in force in the 
Dominion of Canada or in the Province of Quebec, to be 



A^r 



1884. 



The Quern 

V. 

John Rom. 






t. 



• .. , 




. :,::/. 


,1 




3i: 



^ 



'\^ ill 



. '-'v^i 



»s '? 



I \ 
I 



280 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



m :•. 


1884. 


•f;- " 


< The Queen 

V. 

John Rom. 



••I Si"«w . 



"N.i»»».» 



1 "^ii** 



.■■T. 






verified or otherwise assured or ascertained by or upon 
the oath, aiErmation, declaration or affidavit of some or 
any person in the said suit in the Circuit Court (»r 
Edwards v. The Canadian Pacific Jlnilway Compant/, defendant. 
" 5th. Beqause the plea in the case of Edwards v. The 
■ Canadian Pwific Railway Comjmnif not having been pro- 
duced and proved, it wag impossible to decide what facts, 
matteT» or things were required or authorized to be veri- 
fied or otherwise assured or ascertained by or Upon tho 
oath of the said defendant. 

" 6th. Because by thp evidence of ithe Hon. Mr^ Justice 
Johnson, holding the Circuit Court on the 5th day of 
May last past, when the said case ■ of Edwards v. The 
Canadian Pacific Raihoaif Company cama on for trial, and 
before whom the said defendant was sworn and exam- 
ined, it was proved that the said facts, matters and thinga 
set out in the assignment of perjury i|i the said indict- 
dneut contained, were not facts, matters or things 
required or authorized to be verified or otherwise ascer- 
.tained or assured by the oath, affirmation, declaration or 
affidavit of some or any person^ or of the defendant in the 
said Buiioi Edwards v. The Canadian PadfiC'RaUwaif Compan//, 
under and by virtue of any act or law then in force in the 
Dominion of Canada or in the Province of Qiiebec. 

" 7th. Because the said verdict is contrary to justice and 
a new trial will further the interests of justice. 

" 8th. Because it was clearly proved that no«uch evidence 
was ever given By the defendant as that contained in the 
assignment of perjury in the said indictment. 

" I refused to grant this motion, but at the request of 
. thie defendant I reserved for the consideration of the Court 
sitting in appeal, the following questions : — ■' 
^ ^ " 1st. Was it necessary for the prosecution to produce 
• and to prove at the trial the plea which had been filedii) 
the case of Edwards v. The Canadian Pacific Railway Corn- 
pat^, in which cSiUse the perjury charged was alleged to 
/hAve been committed ? * 

J»N, " 2nd. Was it necessary to prove that the faats sworn 
toby the defendant as alleged in the indictment wore 







COURT OF QUEENS BENCH. 



281 




material to the iss^e in the cause in which the defendant 
was examined. t ^ 

" If the Court is of opinion that either of the above 
questions should he decided in the affirmative, then the 
verdict should 'fco^set aside and a new trial ordered as 
prayed for, otherwise the verdict should remain. in force. 

" T^e dcfdiidant was admitted, to bail to appear at the 
sitting of the Court of Queen's Bench to be held at Mon- 
treal, in the month of November next. I 

, A. A. DoiiON, C.J." 

" Montreal, iTth June, 1884. , 

" On the .hearing of the case (Sept. 19), and at the request 
of the defendant, the Retferved CJase was amended as fol- 
lows, by adding the evidence taken at the trial except 
such as had reference to the record ^n the Circuit Cotirt 
and to the. good character of the J^plant. The e\'i- 
dence is as follows :— [We extract jj^t the evidence of 
Mr. Justice Johnson and of /Mr.^HlBRl which suffices 
for the purposes of the present re|ort] 
the evidence of Mr. Justice Johrison was as follows :— 
7' I presided in the Circuit Court*\on 5th May last. I 
rfecollect a case of Edwards \.CamdSm:^mfictCaUwmjCo: 
A Capt. Ross was heard as a witne^; cannot recollect 
his face and say yvhetHer defendant\is the same man. 
i should not have remembered anyChinV. about this case 
except from being asked the day after the trial, and took 
a note of my ruling that no question could be asked to 
establish any personal liability on the part of Mr. Ross. 
I recollect that a questioA Was put asking Capt. Ross 
whether he had engaged Wme men to work on; the 
Alberta for the Canadian Pa^fic Railway. I cannot say 
whether any questions hadr-been put irr^ul^rly as to 
Capt. Ross having personally engaged Edwards. If it 
had been done to my knowledge I would have stopped 
It. Proceedings are somewhat Irregular in the Circuit 
Court, and it is difficult for a persok standing by to under- 
stand the purport of questions piit to, and of answers 
given by, a witness." ^ ' 




1884. 
Th« Queen 

V. 

John Ron. 



..\ 






mmi 






)«HMi 



'■MM 
i 



n 



'' ' >'H 



I. 3' if-f' 



4 



282 



MONTRBAL LAWl^PORTl^ 



t 



In 



U84. 
Th« Queen 



If 






: i::» 



I ■*'•••« 



:^ 



The evidence' of Mr. Hjaneker, Advocate, was to tho 
following effect iij^ .»>;, .' ' 
" I conducted fof.the defendant the case of Edwards v. 
' T%e Canadian PdHifir. Fti^my -Co., on 5th lljiay* last. I 
^now defendant Boss.^l^e was exalnined as a witness in ' 
that case for plaimiff, bat had been.brot^^t,"! believ«s 
b;p;i^efendants, tie Canadian. .Pacific Railway ^o. Ho 
went into theboK; he. was asked whether he was eni' 
ploy6d by the Gfuiadian Pacific Railway Co. He said, no. 
Then he withdrew. lAho'th'er witness was examined, and- 
• defendant wasiagain cajled bjr Mr. fiarry, and asked >' 
whethej-the S.p. Alberta belonged to the Conn>any, and 
me" second qliestion, I believe, was whether he had 
engaged, -xi(|en jlo work en the ship Alberta fat iHe Ganf- 
dii^ Pacific Railway Company; ^or ibr the Company, and 
he said, no- SThen he .wa|s asked whether he ha4^engaged 
' Edwards ana he dni^wered, np. 'This was the purport of 
*? hifS answersi and .iibt the exact words." 



'>^rdly. If considering the evidence and > the ^^(holc 
circumstan|es of the case a n^w" trial shouldt^be granted 



to the defendant. 



t, A, A. DoRiON, C.J." 






On thet6thJSeptemher, the argument/was resumed on 

ihe case as amended. ^ ' • 

' it ■< " ° '* ' 

' J^r, UJC., for the defendant : — ' 

The firet qtiigstioii is as to the power of the jjQurt *to 
interfere|and gl-ant a new trial. " I Submit that in cases 
of misdjemeanoup, where the court think that better 
justice |an be done by granting. a new trial they have 
the righl to set aside the verdict aiid grant a new trial. 

RAMa^Y, J.^-The court exercised the right in' the case 
of JRegJv. J?am (1). ' -'■■■'•-■ 

Mr. Kerr. — I also cite Archbold's Practice and Pl^- 
ing, 19lh edition, page 194. In Rex v. Mawbey (2), Lord 
Kenyan obiServe^ that in granting new trials the court 
know//no limitations, but- they .will grant or refuse a new 

(1) p L. C. J. 327. ' (2) « Term Reporte, p. 038. 




r- 



'"^ 



, was to the 




COtJET OF QUEEN^ 



m 



trial Mji wUl tend to the ddvanlment of justice. In 
tfiis ca|0 the weight of ^evid6nce is in fayour of the 
defendant. Mr. Justice Johnson, who presided at the 
trial of the case in the Circuit Court, said that he did not 
hear the question put, and would not have allowed it if 
he had heard it. Mr, Heneker, who ^a8.coun.<fcl in the ' 
x;ase states that no suoh^question Was put. The Clerk of "* 
thq Court says he is under the same impression. > Airainst 
t^is there is^the evidenqe pf five labouring men who were 

aJI interested, having similar actions against the Canadian 
. 'racmc Uailw^y Company.. , . ^ / 

. ' D. Bu)^, for the prosecution, pointed: out that the wit- 
nesses^^he side of the prosecution spoke positively, while 
the witnesses Tor the defence Were not 80 cleir on the point 

This is a Reserved Case upon a conviction of perjury at 

he term m Jun^ last. T^o questions of law come up • 

1) It was sai^ th^t tjie complete record of the^ase hefore 

the Circuit Court; iu whi«h the perjury was alleged to 

have been committed, was not pWed, inasmuch as the 

plea was .n6t to the i^<^ I ruM at the trial against' j 
the defendant on this poiiit^^d Md that it Wte not ' * 
.n^essary, inasmuch as the assig^ftient of perjury had no \ 
reil^rence^ to the pleadiiigs. (2)' ThaT it^was not proved " 
th^t the f^ts swom-to and Writioned in tfeejindictment ' " 

rt "!J r* *^ *^' "''"• -^ ™^«^ "P^ that^int that ' ' * 
nu^er the law as amended by the statute pf 1860 it is not 

neobssarytopake such pjoof,for-8inqe the statute above^ ^ ' 
me itioned e.ery fact sworn to is considered to be m^e-. " 

?kL ^^ ^. T "^"^ ^ ^°*^*^"^ ^""'^ * »^eW trial, At first 
J W « n r '^'^^^' '^ "'^^^^ enter into that quesl :, ' 
.on. but finllly I reserved the whole cHe both uppn the • ' 
bove-menti,med two points and upon the ,;^6tion for a 

new trial. - . -- , . •• 

It mnet be admitted that this is ft peculiar case. Some 
aathoriiies have been cited to show that it is in thedl- 
frthon of the Court to grant a new trial. I am riot mt 
l»rrf to go to the extent bf the opinion giver hyU^ 



1«H. 

Tfa«-<)UM|I 

r. 
John Rom. 



l' 




» • . 




J 








■< > 




f. 




' 




«r 




9 

t 




». *' 




V 




* ''1 
If; 

1 










i 



>•.-■* 



_J.-^ltl 



& 



'te'.,;.-v,. 



■*•. 



"^grfl 



l: 



v/:,.- 



vV J /^"^ 



;i\>" 






1884. 
Th« Queon 

V. 

John Rom. 



"V, t; , 



A 

'■I 



If .. 









y 




284 






MONTREAL ,LAVf I^FORm / 



;-/ 



Kenyou. "New tvials have be^ refused in some cast'H, 
evep whore the Judge would nave granted a new trial if 
he had been acting as a'jury. The credibility of |he wit- 
nesses is a question for the jury. If I had been^on the 
jury in this case, I would not hav/v given a verdidt against 
the prisoner. It is, as I have said, a peculiar case. FirNt, 
it was an oral statement, which was proved "before the 
jury by verbal testimony alone. The defendant was 
accused of jfyyeariug th0 he had not engaged Edwards 
and another, mt^i for ihe Alberta. The difficulty was 
this : did he swear that he did not engage them at all, or 
merely that ho did not engage then\ for the Canadian 
Pacific Railway Conipany ? The Judge states positively ^^ 
that the question was: did he engage them for the Cana- 
dian Pacific Railway *^f t^at he ' did not bear the other 
question put, and if he^ had heard '\t ho would have 
stopped it. Mr. Heneker, the counsel in the cdse, swears 
positively that the quostidn was whether Ross engaged 
the men for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Mr. Drink- 
water says, the same thing. On the other hand, there are 
four witnesses who state that the prisoner swore he did 
not engage the men at all. I charged tho jury, periiaps 
not so strongly as I should have done, but 1 pointed out 
the difficulty of convicting a man upon such testimony as 
this,^nd where the witnesses for the defence were much 
more intelligent than those for the prosecution. The jury 
found y verdict of guilty. Under the peculiar circum- 
stances of the case, I am of .opinion that the defendant 
should have a new trial.' At present I feel that there is 
considerable difficulty, and certainly if I had been o^he 
jury I 'would not have convicted the defendant. He wn 
have the benefit of ^ new trial, and if another jury thinks 
projper to convict, then tKe verdict will stand. 

Ramsay, J. :— 

I entirely concur with the learned Chief Justice in his 
rulings at the trial .of the defendant. The statute clearly 
lays doVn the rule that materiality of the false testimony 
to the i^sue is not an essential in perjury. It has always 



\. 



"ti~V 




n 



COURT OP QUEEN'S ^ENCB. 



285 



appeared to jme tha^ this enactment was a dangerouB, and 
hardly necessary, innovation. The object was, of 'course, 
to avoid a failure of ju8ti<;o by pretending that under 
some very technical rule of pleading the matter v<ras. 
not within- the issue, and theVefore a person who had 
wantonly and corruptly stated what was false might 
.m^ape punishment ; but facility of conviction, desirable 
in some cases, has its gangers, and I do not think the 
sjatute should be so interpreted as to declare that mate- 
riality to the issue is not to bo considered. 

I also agree with the Chief Justice in thinking that the " 
inability to" produce the plea was of no importance. It 
might, however, have giyou the defendant the right to 
prove, the plea by secondary evidence if, "it had been 
important to him. But really no question arose on the 
plea. , T ■ , ' 

But the case has been amended, and a thifd question is 
now submitted ^to us, namely, Whether tUd defendant 

j Should have a new trial on the ground that the verdict 
was so ill-supported by the eyidence th^t it is to Ife pre- 
sumed the defen4ant,ha8 not j^ad a fa(r tiual. This raises 
two questions : whether on a reservM^^ase, on atrial for 
a misdemeanor, this CouYt has the tiowt^r to grant a r^w 
trial? Second,; vvhether, having'thU^power^ this i» a 
proper case for its exercise ? ^v '., - 

The former of these questions has been formally decided 

^ by thi^^ Court in the case of Reg. v. Bain, where we held 
that this Cqurt has. the power to grant' a new trial in per- 
jury. The latter of these questions appears to me to be also v 
affijcted by Bain'a case. There we granted tTie new trial 
on the ground that it was probable the jury were misled, 

else they would not have brought jn a Verdict of guilty! ' 
This case appears to me to have a' great similarity with 
that case. We have first the. witnesses for the prosecu- 
tion, with a common interest, swearing po8iti\'ely to a 
certain question being ptit. They are asked if another 
question, somewhat like the one as to whiol^l^ perjury 
was assigned, was put, which it ieems it was, and they, 
dQn;.t know. Again, the Judge wj|o >tried the civil gnit i 



1K4 

The Uumti 

V. 

Juhn Ron. 






^^^:- 






ml 



-m 



I 



t::" 




2d6 



MOKTllEAL LAW REPOnTR 



1M4. 
The Qu44tii 
John koM. 



i 




i' 

'(";■■ 



^& 



i>\., 


^s,, 


.t' 


m^\ 


P-, ' 


««%. 


1' 1 ' 


«i! 




Mb Si 




If*" 



•>. 









:2 



iS-i'-ii*, 



w / 







heard no such qaestion as ihat Bwom to by the /witneofieH 
for the prosecution ; he yould not have allowed it to bo 
put if he had heard it, and we now^ know that ne stopped 
further questions on that part of the case. Another thin<f^ 
struck me on reading t%e evidence. The question is : di^ 
you engage the deft^ndant or men for the Alberta i and 
he answered " No." Npw, it is perfectly clAar that the 
suit was brought to decide whether what passed between 
Edwards and lloss amounted to an engagement. Evi^ 
dently it was only a cdnstructive engagement, and Ross 
was not asked any question about the detailsj^bnt only 
whether ho engaged the men or not. It is I possible this 
may be a corrupt mis-statement, but it appears to me to 
be one way of saying that /he did not' consider it an 
engagement. He had some ground for thinking there 
was no engagement, for it appears the rate /of wages was 
not settled, at all events, wi|:h Edwards, and if he merely 
meant to convey the idea that there was not what he 
considered a' final engagement there was no perjury in 
the matter. His 'intention might have been made clear 
' if the interrogation had been proceeded with, but the 
matter vjfoa let drop. Mr. Barry explains this by saying 
the Judge stopped it ; but that sho^oild not militate 
againiit the accused. I therefore concur with the 
opinion of the Cotirt that a new trial should be granted. 

, Monk, J. :— . ••■■■■<.\. . '■■'■./ ' ■ . '^ ; / 

I entirely conctir iA the decision of /the Court ordering 
a uew trial)' for tjif reasons assigned py the Chief Justice, 
which reasons appear to me entirely/ conclusive. ^^ 

The following is the, judgment' of the Court : — •*' 
" Considering that there was no error in the rulings of 
the Judge presiding, at the trial against the defendant on 
Tst and second questions reserx^'ed in the Reserved 

considering that, from the whole circumstances of 
•there appeals to have been some misapprehen- 
sion as to the nature df the questions pnt to the defend- 
ant and to the answers thereto, and that owing to such 




V(r".i 







COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



m 



niiHapprohenHion th^ defendant may have been taken by 
Burprise and the jury misled, and that it is proper that a 
new trial bo granted to the deftmdant ; 

"This Oourt^doth set aside the verdict against the 
defendant, and doth order that a new trial do take place 
in duo course at the next or at any wubNt'quent term of 
the Court of Queen's Beuqh, totting on the Criminal side ' 
at MontjeaL", - • 

, t ■ yerdict quashed and new trial ordered. . 

A^Airr?/, for the private prosecution. ' 
W. H. Kerr,,Q.C., for the defendant. " ""^ — ^ "T^ 

(j. K.) , , 



1M4 



■V»i 



Th« Queen 
Juhn Row. 


' ' ■ \ 


- ■; 


-*• 


• ' ■ 


T-'- ■ > 


* 




'^ 




- 


■■ i 
' ■ ■ ■ '-"■ "t 



November 24, 1884. 

Coram Ramsay^ Tehsier, and BabI-, Jl, and Do^erty 
and Cakon, JJ. flf/ Aw. . ^. 



i\. 



R. A-.R HUBERT, 

{Intervenant below), 

APPELI4ANT ; 



AND 



THE CITY OF MONTREAL, 
' .*'. (Defendant below). 

Respondent, 

Intem!niiim—Prfscription^-42-4B Vict. ((^.) th. SS-^Assemient 
roll— 31 Vict. (QJ ch. 81. 

Hbi,i) : 1. Where an action had been brought by one of several persons 
assessed for the cost cpa, speoJAt improvement, to set aside the assess- 
ment roll, that any other person, assessed for tlie cost of the same 
improvement had an interest which entitled him t6 intervene if the 
original plaintiff abandoned the case. 

2. Where an action was instituted before the expiration of the delay 
fixed by a Statute fqf pontestin^ asse^ment rolls, the right <rf 
an intervenant taking the same conclusions as those of the original - 
action was not barred, though the deUy had expired before the in- 
tervention was filed. I 



> 



VIS I 

^1 



ml' 






^ 






1- M 



>-< 



lV. 



• 1 



' "It* 



288 



MONTREAf. LAW REPORTS. 



Il)i|«rt 

Oily ..r 
MoiitrvnI. 



I' U, 





IKiU. a. Umlnr llu< HUtiiUt »! Vkl. (ij.), cli. 37, It wun no(»«NNMry tliul tlin Ctiiit- 
inkMiiiuorN ii|)|i(jitit«t«l tii curry oiil aiut)i|m>|>rl«tli>ii and hi <loU«riiiini- 
tlio |Mrii«<M inttmmttHl llion<iii luul tu Im* luwiiiwod for ihtt |Hirp''>N<> 
of tlitt |»M|iim««l ini|in(V«iuitiit, Hlionld ^ivn piiblU; nolicn <i( tlioir '\<r>>- 
MHMliniiH In llio iiiuiiiu»r tl)<>n(iii prtivitlitil, iiiul in tlio aliMiiu;o (ifHiit h 
iiuti(!0 tlio iuiM(«Haiituiil roll iiiikIu liy tlxt ('oniiniHHioii^m wiiM null tutij 
void ; uor oinid tho HiilMU<|iiniil honutlo^iUinii of Itie ni|Mir( ort'otii- 
ttiiHMtttnttrH by llio Sn|H)rior i'oiirt icivf) validity t«t hiicIi |tnM^HPliii;(H. 

This wiiN a oiiM«* in whic-h tho validity of t» HU<;on<l 
aHHOHHiiKtiit roll, to (h't'ray tlu' cost of widening Littl» St, 
JumcH Htnu't, WUN aittiwked. 

TluMipiM'llant'lluhort-, onu of th^,> p''^P''i<'^"'^ t^f^"^'<l 
lor ihi'i «08t of the im|>rov(>nu'nt, intorvwii^'d in the, court 
below in a unit hroujfht ajjaiMMt tlwt City in the name ol" 
the MolNons Hank, the ohjeet of trm suit )>eing to havu 
the iisseMHiuent roll in queNlioii set tutide. 

The prinei|>al aietion Het out that ilt 18(50 i|( number ol 
proprietors along both Kid^wi of' LittUi St. JameH street 
prcHontedapetiti<m to the eorporation, repruucnting that 
the widei^iug ol' Litth' St. JameH Htreet would bo a desir- 
able publie improvenu'ut and an advantage to the pttii- 
tioners, who represented the majority in value, and pray- 
ing that the improvement be carried out. This petition 
was referred to the road committee of the city corpor- 
ation in Ma^»'h, 1868. In April of the same year another 
•petition of proprietors was presented to the same effect, and 
this wa» also referred to the road committee. On the 27th 
June the road (committee reporttid on the two petitions, 
recommending the carrying out of the widening, provided 
4he city should pay qnly a quarter of the cost. Then on 
the 2nd July, 1867, the finance coifhmittee reported in 
favour of the widening, on condition that the entire cost 
be pai^ by the parties interested or benefited by the im- 
provement. It was alleged that no resolution was passed 
^ by trhe council, as the law required, authorizing the carry- 
ing out of the improvement.- Under 27-28 Vict., chap. 
60, sec. 11, three commissioners were appointed to settle 
the compensation to be paid to proprietors for the land 
taken, and to assess the cost of the improvement, vi/., 



■ f^t^p> 


■ .* / ■ '■•'•■ 


$129,009.58. 


In July, 1868, the commissioners made an 


K. 




« 


:;;;;,:- :;■;■, \;v":v':;^;::'^;:^;^ 


mtkiki.. < 




. 


,1 



of a HU(;oii<l 



> 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BKNCy. 
>««Ht«Hiini«iit roll, whiih wan illogal «iid irrogular 



lat 



289 

plaiutifrM ullBfffld thai th«y piiid the Hum lor which thoy 
wow iittHosHi'd in onli^r to avoid » 8ei/ur«. but aftorwimlu 
.ohtaimMlajudgmetttMondemnihg th« (rjty io rwimhurae , 
the umount, tho a8HCH«m«nt roll h«iiig,,d«<lHn!d pull by a 
liidgmoiit of th« Privy Council in thn nmr of HurriHotv 
St.'ph«n8 and Th« Corporation of Montrtnil. On th« «th 
l).romber, im, o uew roll wiw mad« Ht which the plain- 
tilft woni .u.H«8wd at $mM. Th« plain^iJIi, alleged that 
tiu! new roll woh open to the eaine 6bje(^tion« w the former 
one; that the resolution of the ccmneil, bt^ing illegal in~ 
the b*'ginning, wjw so Htill, and that no notice having 
booi given to the parties intoreiited in opposing the im- 
provement, the new assessnumt roll was a nullity. * 

This atition, us ulwve mentioned, was instituted in the 
name of the Molsons Bank, but the Bank being dflsirous 
oF withdrawing the suit, the present appellant intervened 
ui order to carry on the case. \ 

The defence of the city was, firstly, that under 42-48 
Vut., chap, r.8, sec. 4, any party interested • in an assJss- 
ment r6ll is bound to take proceedings within thirty days 
alter the Act is sanctioned ; that the intervener in this 
i-asA had not done so, and the demand was barred. Second- 
ly, as to the merits, it was pleaded that tie proceedings 
111 connection with the widening of the street were regu- 
lar, and that the intervener was one of those who originally 
petitioned for the improvement. 

The Superior Court (Montreal, Sept. 80, 1882, Mathieu, 
I) maintained the pleas and dismissed the intervention.- 
The proceedings of the commissioners were held to be 
regular, and the intervention was considered to be too 
late: "considferant que Taction ' 6tant une action Ipure-^ 
ment personnelle, I'intervenant rie pent se servir des con- 
c usionp de la dite demanderesse et appuyer de ses con- 
tusions une demande faile apres les delais fixfcg par lo 
dit statut, pour faire annuler le dit r6le de cotisation." 
The appeal was from the above judgment. " ~ 

5flr»i<w< Q.C., for the appellant. 

^. QC, for the respondent. / 

4. LaatstH , Q , C ., in rnply for th e appellant. 









Hubert t 

k ' » 
Clly of 




* ■ » '- 

1 






, 


■ ■■■ Ji 

-m 




♦■ 


1 i 





llf I 

liiii 



H- 



mm 



;ja 



«m I 




'4b 




\ 



Wn 



m 



'A I 




240 



MONTREAL I^W HKl'ORIK 



H«l 



r* 



MoiurMl. 




i 








•«*» 


'f 




'■.U\ 


















\ 



« t 






Tht) judgmeitt of tho Coart wwi rvudvred by 

Uamhay. J.:— ' 

ThlN IN iin ntUinii m nullUA ile rAlt' tie ivHmHoh. It wiut 
brought by lh«; MoUoiin Huuk, luul lh«t upp«'llaiit, tiii«|- 
iiig that |lhi> MoImuiin Dniik wu« about to ubandoii tht< 
atitiou, inti4r.v«4iuil. Tho a«-tioi/ wun (liNini(UKi>d o» thi* 
luuritN, and thti iuti-rvi'iiiiig pyty ai>p<>aU>d. ^ 

The (/or|K)ratinn, n'N|M)ad»'U^, mtHftw thm appoal by gay' 
iiig that .th«< iiitorviaiiug pari/y haM no right to bo iu tho 
caMi> at all, tor that, by a Htatvttu {■i'l-iH Vic. (^hup. 58), thi^u 
In a limitation of thirty <lay« Ibr bringing Ml action to 
annul a roll of aMHt>H(iUu>nt from tho 8lHt Ortolxir, 1870, - 
that tho intorvuntion waN only Hied thu 7th Juno, 18K0, 
and that theroloro it iH too lat<<. 

This objoutiou dmiH not app«>ar to ino to bo very t'ormid- 
abl«. Iu tho tirHt pla«-«>, thuru Ih a judgment allowing thu 
iutorvontion, from whi(;h thuro in no appeal, and next, I 
think that judginont in i;orroot. Without ontoring into 
any i-ouHidoration of whuthur thu action of tho MoIhouh 
Bank is in any MeuHo an action /topulaire or not, it ia cloar 
that a numbor of persons with separate interests depend- 
ing on a common cause, determined that ouo of them 
should bring a suit to annul, and the Molsons Bank suit 
was so brought.- Owing to some (change of cinrumstancett, 
the Molsons Bank desired to settle its suit and to with* 
draw, and notified the other parties, whereupon the 
appellant intervened and took precisely tho same conclu- 
sions as the original plaintiff, in order to avoid tho dilH- 
culty of this peculiarly short limitation of tho statute. 
All tho writers on Pro<;edure seem to be agreed that inter- 
est either in tning or defending is the basis of the right to 
intervene, and I see no limit to It. Pothier (Tr. do la Pro. 
Civ.) says : — " L'intervontion est un acte par lequel un 
tiers demande k ^tre refu partie dans une instance formec 
entre d'autres parties, soit pour s'y joindre an demandeur, 
et demander la m6me chose que lui,ou qnelquo chose de 
connexe, soit pour so joindre au d6fendeur, et combattre 
avec lui la demande du demandeur qu'il a int6r6t de 
d6tTaure." 



j^.., 
'^ 



4r 



■ -, ;.KsiSVi»i^sfe'-i; : 



COURT or QUEKWM BENCH. 



la 


int^rdt de 




.: ., ;-;;:.; 


: "■ 





^f"' 




In IhiR ,Mfi •ppolhnfii ji,t„nH,t i. evidont. He dl<l not 
hr.ng an a..t.on him««ll. U •««« ho tm-Unl to th.t of th« 
MoU,n« H«„k. Ti,i. i. ^, „»o„ption«lly favor.bk po.i- 
ti«»n, It that «un alter th« «|u<»«tlon. , 

An arguimml in u«h1 by r«.jM)nd«nt whkh, I confer, I 
<lo Hot ..lourly undor^land. It U naid tho iu:tion i. «, rem, 
iMd theroforo ,t iutowMtcKl tho bunk alomV I «m „ot 
ttwure oJ any .u.-h diHtinction in thn books alfortinir th« 
"ffh to i»terv«no. ii<,r do I nm why it idiould Bignify 
who h«r tho action bo in rem or in jH^mn^m. Tho only 
quoHUou wan to whothor tho intervrm^nl', right in « 
< lontly diroi!t, " \ 

I'asBing to tho inoritu of tho int«^rvontion. it in » 
tainod oa tho part of tho ConK,ration. that tho dooisio 
lHo Jtt(firial Committoe makoB a diatiuction botwoou 
««'*««inont and the a««t.«8ment roll. It would not' b^ 
^my to ronfonnd thorn, but it i. not m obvioua what 
arffumont bearing on this ca«o can bo drawii from thii, 
di«tmction. If tho commi«8ionor8' powors woro at an 
.'Ud whon thoy performod tho culminating act, their 
wholo proceedings were null. Thoy wore appointed to 
do a thmff as a whole, within a cortain time, and doinir 

of In7."1.**^ ". rl^/" ***'** ""^^^ ™ °°* ^ performance 
of any distmguishable part of their duties. Tho Privy 
Council declared, as this Court did. that time was of 
.mportance-that is to say that tho commissioner's powers 
apsed by time. Thoy did not say that Mr. Hubert could 
u,t be assessed, but that ho was not then rightly asaosscHi 
It was not necessary to decide 4ny other issue. 

The question before us, thorofore, js whether appellant^ 
» rightly assessed no^^and that question does not seem ^ 
to ho affected by anything that took place in the previous , 
'i««« '*.'****^^ *° *^« assessment roll of the llth August 

l>ecember, 1878* v ^'t , v ''' 

It is not contended that under the old'statutei there 
was any means of rectifying an omission nuch as that of " 

statutes of the Province of Quebec as giving Wer to 



IliiUrl 



Ml 



^1 



■# 




ac 





-^ 



'«■ 



H 



'm 









242 



HONTBEAL LAW BEPOBT& 



1884. 

Ilubore 

A 

City of 

Montreal. 






It^ 5^ 



Mii 






make a ne\^ assessment roll where there is a defect in the 
original assessment roll. These st^utes are the 82 Vic, 
chap. 1% sec. 18 ; the 3t Vic, chap. 51, sec. 188, and the 
42-48 Vic, chap. BS, sec 4., ° 

The Act 42-48 Vic is not further in question than in so 
much as it' necessitated the institution of this action, Ibr 
one of its declaratory clauses provides that all rolls of 
assessment prepared and completed since the 29-30 Vio., 
" which have not beon contested in any court," shall be 
held to be now valid and obligatory and binding in law to all 
intents and purposes whatsoever, unless contested within 
thirty days from the coming into force of that act, that is 
since the 31st October, 1879; and in so far as it limits 
what may be urged as a cause of nullity in any jkssess- 
ment roll. 

On the first point, already explained, we are against the 
respondent. We have next to enquire by what authority 
the roll of 1878 was made. , ' 

It is hardly necessary to examine very critically the 
dispositions of the Act of 1869, for in 1874 the charter ol 
the respondents and the acts amending it were consoli- 
dated (37 Vic, chap. 61), and section 188 was evidently 
intended to- take the place of section 13 of the Act of 1869, 
although differing to some extent from it. The scheme ol 
the Act seems to have b|enihe creation of commissioners 
for assessing only, and they were4o proceed either where 
there is an amicable settlement as to the value of the pro- 
perty expropriated, or where proceedings in expropriation 
are valid and simply the assessment invalid. It was on 
this idea the roll now attacked was made. 

The first point appellant raises is that the resolution of 

thfe Council was illegal^ not havinf been authorized by 

the parties interested. The second, that there was a 

declaration of a majority in value of the parties interested, 

'Objecting to the improvement ; and the third is that tAe 

• Act of 1869 only applies to the futoire, and that the roll 

was annulled in 1873. In this last proposition ther^ is 

evidently some mistake. ' - 

To understand the first of these difficulties we must go 



4 



''T^v*"'^^W-'''. 



4 



OOtJRT OP QUEEire BENCH, 



248 



ties we must go 



back to the laws in forcfe when the expropriation was 
mi«d«. This is by no means an easy business. The 27 
and 28 Vic. (26th June, 1864.) was an act of rather a 4ta- 
conian type. It is justly termed by the City Clerk as the 
"Law on Expropriations." The general doctrine of the 
City Council is that they, representing thte Corporation, 1 
arc alone entitled to decide what is an improvement an4 
what is not. In its most abstract form the doctrine is not 
beyond question; but when wo engraft oh it this other 
doctrine, that the City Council shall decide whither the' 
improvement is of such a nature that the cost in wholj 
or in part shall be borne by a certain class of individuals, ' 
the untenable character of these pretensions becomes so 
apparent as to force itself on the attention of the most 
superficial observer. As a consequence of pushing an 
advantage too far, a re-action set in of so thorough 
a nature that the whole 8<jheme of expropriation was« 
almost upset. By the 11th section (29 and 30 Vic, chap. 
5t],) a"makJority in value of the proprietors interested could 
by a declaration stop the \\fhole proceedings. By the 
12th section it was enacted 1;hat simultaneously with 
fixing the amount of indemnity the commissioners should 
also fix by whom and in what proportions it should be ~ 
paid, " in whole or in part, conformably to the resolution 
of the said Council." 

la 1868 there wais an amendment to secjtions 11 and 12 
of the last-named act (31 Vic, chap. Si, sec 9), by which 
It was provided that these sections should be explained - 
aud ni«ified " in manner and to the extent following:-^ 
The |aid commissioners, before proceeding with the valua- 
tion required by the said sections, shall, begin by deter- 
mining who are the parties interested in and to be specially 
assessed, for the purpose of the proposed improvement 
and dr|w up a report thereof, and give public notice of 
the same by an advertisement to be inserted during ten 
days i^ two English and two French daily newspapers 
published in the city of Montreal ; and the said parties so ' 
notiHed who desire to oppose the said proposed improve- 
|m|ut shall 1^ bound to file their oppositioits in the hands 

1 



18S4. 

Hubert 

City of 
Montrval. 



'^4. 

'■'i 



.:%7r 




. • ri 



M 



i jf "^ % '^ fm^^-'-'KHr^i^F^-^ 



&^T '"V^ ■'ff^) 



\ 



li '1 



1884. 

Hubert 
& 

City of 
Montreal - 



^^■'^ 






:#^^' 






IN,. 



■/ 



-.*,,> 
^S,. 

•»%' 
«■>«,. 



■•^■'■o^, 



•sift 






244 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



of the said commissioners within throe days from the dat« 
of the last insertion of the said advertisement, the said 
commissioners, upon the iiliug of the said oppositions, to 
proceed as mentioned in the said sections." One is utterl y 
at a loss to understand where the modifi<^ation and^e^plii- 
nation begins and where it ends. The 80»tion establishes 
a totally new provision. As I understand appellant's 
argument, it is that this notit-e was not and could not be 
given, and that therefore no valid expropriation could b.' 
made, or indeed it would seefn that no assessment could 
ever be made subsequent to the fixation of the cost of 
expropriation. 

It seems to m? to be obvious that under the terms of 
the 32 Vic. or 37 Vic, no valid assessment roll cp^ be 
inade on an invalid expropriation— that is to say, invalid 
for matters not covered by 42 & 43 Vic, chap. 53 (mat- 
' ters of form, and that the; rpUs of assessment were not 
made at the proper time or at the same time as the valua- 
tion rolls). ■ ■ fit ' ' , ' 

I cannot agree with appellant that he has shown any- 
thing illegal in the resolution of the Council ; but, on the 
other hand, I do not siiehow it was possible for the com- 
missioners to drawiipa report of the parties interested 
. and liable to the special assessment either under sectjioBs 
• 11 and 12 of the Act of 1866 or under section 9 of the Act 
of 186|J. The parties interested were therefore not on 
their guard, and the defect g^ea beyond and behind the 
assessment roll. It is not only the assessment roll that 
is bad, but the other proceedings in expropriation, which 
could only be carried on simultaneously with the assess^ 
ment, according to the syste^of the Act of 1866, or after 
the parties interested were warned, according to the sys- 
tem of the Act of 1868. As an illustration, we have an 
opposition by some of the interested parties on the 9th 
January, 1868, and now it is said this was not made by a 
majority in value. If there was no assessment or appor- 
tionment, how could this be determined V Or how could 
the persons re^ly interested exercise th^ power to object 
This is not a matter of form, covered by sec. 8, 42 &.43 



•:&i^' 






'.' ; ■ ; '■ '.■ ' .V 

, C50URT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. . 246 

Vic. It is substantial as to who shall pay, and as to 
whether the improvement ehall be carried on tinder the 
resolution of the Council. 

It is urged by the respondent that the homologation of« 
the proceedings by the Superior Court was tes judicata to 
all the 'world as to what took place on the expropriation, 
so that the 9pmmi8si6ners, having omitted the principal 
part of their duty, might be absolved from its perform- 
ance by the exparte homologation of their illegal procfjgd- 
iugs. This proposition is not supported by any authority, 
so far as I know. . li^ 

If the Legi8la|;ure seriously intemded by the Act of 1879 
to deprive the parties interested of the protections afforded 
by the Acts of 1866 and 1868; it is a pity they had not the 
courage to say so clearly. If effect were given to the 
views of the Corporation, we should have the pro^i|>ns 
of the two last-named Acts disregarded, and then, under < 
pretext of giving a favorable interpretation toa'"<iine-/ 
dial measure," we should have the illegal proceedi« 
declared valid, mw, what is remedial in that ? It is i 
remedy all on one side. The remedy is for the party wh 

tnot give his adversary the notice he was entitled t 
^not contest the power of the Legislature to enact b^ 
post facto laws, or even to stylq t&em remedial, whethir 
they be so or not, but this I do say— that if it be expected ' 
that courts of justice are to give effect to legislation of 
this sort, the intention of the legislation must Be framed 
m such a way as to leave no doubt' as to the deliberate 
i9tention of the Legislature. Speaking for myself, and'^ 
8Q. far as I may bo called upon .to act, I may say this— 
that I shall assume no individual reSpdnsibility in j(;he 
execution of unprincipled laws. Competed by a special 
article of the ^ode to judge, even where the law is 
obscure, I shall in such cases always determine that the 
statute is unmeaning rather than" vicious. 

On the third point, I am against appellant. The Act 
of 1874 is a re-enactmeht of that of 1869, and the former 
At;t was before the annulling of the assessment roll. 



1884. 

Habere 

A 

Gitjrof 

MontrwI. 




•■ 



«■ 



'■ 'f 



m 



'■n r- 

I'm "^ 






i ( 



■K^ * 






& 



'.'!' ?s 






%■ 



'«!,- 



i^. 



A 








■if 


'iHi 




i I : 


HuUrt 
k 

• . City of 
Montmal 



\. 



I' 






>>t 






If I 



It 



I. 



246 



if^ 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



D0HKRTY\ J. :-^ ' / * ' , 

I have had very little diffioalty, upon the merits of this 
case, in coming to the^ conclusion that the judgment 
should be reversed. The failure of the commissioners to 
give notice of their proceedings was fatal to the validity 
of their report. I have considerable dilliimlty, howevor, 
with reference to the right df the appellant to interven»' ; 
but, after full consideration of the point, I am not disposod 
to differ from the Court upon thi8%round. ^ 

The following is the jii<|gment, as recorded : — 
_^"The Court, etc. 

" Consideiijng that the ^appellant ha*d an interest in the 
suit pending (to wit, on the 6th day of .June, 1880,) 
between the Molsotas Banl^ and the respondent, and jthfe 
said appellant was entitled to interveAe and become a 
party to the said suit ; . ' * 

"And considering that the. limitation or shprt prescrri)- 
tion invoked by respolWent "d/oes not determine the right 
of the appellant to set aside the assessment joU, but is 
only a limitatiojft of the right'to institufe a suit for that 
purpose ; an^whereas the' said action of the Molsons 
^nk {gainst respondent was mstituted before the expira- 
tion of the time of such limitation ; _" J "' 

"Doth adjud|p aiM declare that the said appellant had 
a right to intervene and become a party fo the said suit,* 
and to plead and maintain all the grounds and reasons 
against the said assessnient roll he might have pleaded 
and maintained had he been originally a party to the 
said BnWfili the Mol'sons Banl^ against the City of Montreal ; 
" And considering further, that the assessment roll was 
made by the commissioners'" without dealing with the 
opposition of the appellant and other proprietors to the 
carrying out of the alleged improveipaent ; ■- \ ■ 

" And considering that the st^id assessnient roll was 
made, as well as the valuation roll on which *it was 
based, without notice to the parties interested, and par- 
ticularly without their having any opportunity to contest 
the same or to be heard^concerning the sanie ; 

" A;id considering there is error in the judghient 



VI 






>. 






'ri:' 



.€^ 



X/*3;:i^> 



"-Bk.' ■■*■■■" - ■■■ 









, OOtJRT OP QUEENIS BENCH. 



V« 



247 



i.» 



' ■,*■■■.■■■ 

appealed' from, to wit, the juclginerit padered by the "" 
Superior Court sitting at Montreal on the 301^ September. "''^"* 

1882; - . ■--', :.•,>: ^5 ■ ^ . '-* - 

" Dotii reverse, set aside and annut the' said judgment 
of the^fiOth September, 1882; 

'* And proceeding to render the jadgnlent which ought 
to Have been rendered, doth maintdn the intervention of 
I ,thft jippell«^nt, nnd dot^ declare^^'^e assessment roil in 
qu«'8tion in ^hisAause- to wit, the assessment roll of tW 
6th December, 1878, to be irregular, null add void, and 
<lo% |gt. aside the same with ^costs against the said 
responcfent as well as in the Court below as on tins 
■appeal." ' \, ■.;'-:^: .''■ ■ .\^. ■'^■'■- ."■ 

^ Judgment reversed* 
Barnard, Beauchamp Sf Doiwre^ attorneys for the appellant. 
R. Bop, Q.C., attorney forHhe respondent. ' ' 
(J- K) • ... 



♦ ( 



city of 


;■'■ ' -■•"■'■■ 


Montreal. 


'^ ■ "' 


• 


*•"* 






» 


• ,....■ >^V 




•^ .„---", ■ '■* 




■ ■* . ] 




■M' ; ; f 




■■'■"■ 'r-''\ 




T . . . '■■•■* 1 


*» 


-: V' ,..! 


'. '■• 


... ■". ■ ■.■ ■ 


■ "" 


■-■-j~- '.t-— 


^ 


»' 


t- 


• v- ••„ ./K| 



"% 



' \*^ •V2tjanvierl885. V 

- Coram Dorion, J.C, Ramsay, Tessieb, QRp^ and 
. Baby, JJ. 

/§ ". PAMPHJLE BIRON^ ' " ' 

{Deikandeur en Courinf6rieure), 
'' ' # \ - ' ^ ' Appelant; 

■■' ' .■ '■• ;/ ■■ .. *^'^\ :":■■ "■"■;"■ "^■■■■. ■ . . 

,2- ANTOINE TRAJAN, '/ " 

, . {Dtfendmr en Cour inf^rieme), 

Venle d'immeubles—Cratnte ofe Vacheteur'^Mre troubli—Cau- 

tionnement — Art. 1535 C. C.—Mati^e discritionnaire-^ 
■ \, ' ■ " Idmitatym du cauiyonnement. " ''. 

Jici:— lo. Que la question de savdir si I'achetenra ju8t©«ujet decraindre 
d'dtre^roubl*; et pent demander caution en vertu de I'art 1535 C C.. 
est une matiitre discr^tiorinaire, dans iaquelle cette Cour sera ppu dis- 
pos4e &d^r^ger le jugement de la Cont de premiere instance. 
* Jo. (iiiejorsque la Cour de premiere instance a cqiidamn^ le vendeur A 
donner caution, sans limfter la dui^de'^de t^l caulionnemen't, la dont 
,■ d'Appel r^formora le jugement &odt eflfet ^^ 



' / 



'-kA 



) - 
1 L.J'' 






:■£;,.:.--" 



% 



,.*« -.■ 



-^ 



K 





■.-^^ 




/.A 



]iim 






L LAW R^FOt 

Bam84;T, J. (iiu 

This C4«e camajpvnpl lb ajwoal from ajudgment orderinir 
ggellant,'plaiaiik in theXJourt beli^ to give security 

for costs. -1- /*/ !;>■■.'* ' % ' ■■ 

Only bill questi^lj^ arises ola|| moi^i^t, ft is whethtT 
thedefe^4Ant is |i?iithin.th^8obpe ofMrt. 1635^ a|oo4^ 
mftny.,;P8(i|(fii.:;beariui^m^ oPles8„oii^^ W- .*19*''*%®*'V<' ^ 

been bitofc|>Ut- wh^; we have to loffkM^'*'he»:^^of '' 
that artjc^^,^(U» tlie defendant juBt^(^aip||^y feat- l^^if 
will be <^P^ted ? It has l?een,d;6cidfe i^i^ I thii^ 
rectly, t^^^ ubt%iBe8i|# ^dhe^elMllht to k\ 
-^ ^^^'fl^^^^^l^pN^^ ^'^ly':^^ there u'a 

;.' : <^PP<^^^i^^%^ '^if^f ^l^^tt that 

1/ (Sued . ri^^m,4e^ife|||ps^|| 'if^aSa^nM|f purcl^e mouoy; . 
^, 'BAiBpoj0:6Tm^ti8M^^ ■" yc^' i^^ gfvea me- by 

I '''tf™' *'*^*^^^®**'l^*^ ■ ^^"^^^ ^he,4th: irarige of "W;eedoir J 
!». ^^^ch,,^aCtu^^;M^ke''5ti|rffijige,^ J 

^- 'b^M^i^Aicmh^ W%& this pjec^bf land formsj ' 



t^n,44)emer8-7Wid the d^eM«U|;M^ to be tfoubli 



A,lMV;'f.; 



i t^ 



Is; 



Hi 



To^thiH^n^ 



plaintiff pleajpis : , It V;i.?M ;; „.' * 



m 



»|k ■'^^ • ::♦' .' ■'•' J| ■ ^|i^; iii'-s' r:i by h;is deedvi^^- the title iiescriBed thcLi^ry lot of which ' 
l|gl; ' - '.■,;.*> s-'^ ■ ^' ■ 'j' ■3'|- ; !';: .■^8ji*pitt«^^def^daftt;has pOss^ssic^Jbyt^a special des^ 
;^'fiife;vv. ■ f '-^^ ■■^.^,^(l|:^:-|:c^io^^T^^ ^''^'', 

ljv|i i 2. 1;h^t|>i^i|if^-^ goo4 by /presM'iption of JJftj 

!.■ ■l- , ■ y^rs and-irill;^ v^re^ ». / -. " -'^' . -^ 

^ 8. Itia^ofllM^tsIthe valfte of Which defendant miffht' 

f claim. 



if,;.: :: 



v^ 



I ) 4. Thglbdefehdant's tender was ndll. 






■•^1?:^.' 



k-» 



'( ' 



. i| / - The th!(A and fourth of the repliies of plajjitij^ are^un- "' 
«!l:enable. An incidental claim of that, soif is^noequivaleiit I 
• i "> forhis money. 'What the faw allows him is security (^ the 
' Wney itself.r 3?^ tender, seemf»li be sufficient, and at ^ 
* } all events it Ipvas and is rJafusg^amhat ft technical irrc- 



"-^ 



■ ■■ t r 


^0- 




a 


" K 


- ■ 1 ■ ■■ ■■ ,. ,; 


■ . A.:.,-.;, 


i \. 


■ i. ■ - . 


■.- —A. . .'-^V 





covter dF queen'^ bench.^ 



249 



ment orderiHir 
I give security 




endaiit might'. 




iW 




not affect the main question . We therefore 

iWo fiiTsit propositions. It seems that, 

I survijy the township of Weedon 

^ho 4th range became the property 

'^ ^.fourth of it was sold to one 

'«l«ae, who sold onb arpent of it 

«, #ho.;agaiirti sj^M tjtiis arpent to Trahan. Some 

b©foreVth0^8^te|ro Trahan the defendant, it was 

^^MM^^^* ft land-surveyor, had discovered 

<*^»P#!T^|m^mi8calculiation, the dividing '^ihe 

C^^ ^^^ ranged Jhad b«en drawn about 

-^^^^^^"^^^ north, at ^11 events as far as lot 

^ |^l|lhat, the efe would be to.place this arpent in 

"m 5th range instead of in the 4th range. To get over 

^his difficulty the^ed to Trahan described the acre of 

jand somewhat ^<ferent^y from the former deeds, and 

j^pecially added that it should be ainsi qu'U a toujours it4 

ttiamntcejour. li now seems that the error indi- 
by Richard really exists, and that Fournier and his 
ifU cause had no title whatever to the lot of land built 
by him and sold by appellant to respondent. If/ 
a has cqnveyed no title to what he has delivered, it/ 

'^^ifc?**®'*' ***** *^®'® "*^^* ^ * seriouis danger of eviction? 

Q'P** respondent putting the possession ammo dmtini If 
all his predecessors together has a perfect title. He/is 
tjierefore not in peril, and I think the judgment should be 
teversed. / 

||it»est regrettable que cet appel ait 6te pris, car le'r^sul- 
f^tjiUe pent pas 6tre d'une grande importance pour les 
parties; Le 12 decembre 188ia'appelant vendit a I'in- 
rtim^ lin emplacement deerit comme suit k I'acte de veiite,: 
"$^^^^ ^e.terre ou 6mplacemenV8i|ittft)pri|ui dli^^dii. 
iship d^^ Weedon, foYmant p^^^dulot ni^6r^L 
dan8>quatri6'me rang, j:tin arpent de l'a%eu? 
n.ai^ent de longueur, ^ ^ndre et k ^^lacher du 
> *erre s^sdit et qui se trouve a vingt pieds du cor- '^^ 
du cinqmeme ran|f^nsi qu'il a toujours et6 reconnn 




UK. 

Biron 

A 

Trsbaln. 



1' 

s 

"•■IP f 



-li? 



m\ 















^'Y* 



w 



-'I. 



u 




' >1 



'>^^ 






^t^,; 



J«M^ 



it-'" 



■•■| 





1 


7 ^'' / 




j ■ :■-.■■ 



>«4.> 






(•^iM 



C-"'^ 

^'*"*«l*, 



i 


** «»,l ^^ 







i- 



mf 



i: ff 



\ 



260 




»iotrni«At txw «|Etx^tt<ra 



;:■../ 



"avant r e Jonr, tenant en front {tn ohninm de .lign? qui 
" condttil A la rivi6ro St. Fran^ii ; En arridre et des deux, 
" cdtds Alun nommf; Blancliot, avoc la maison ot los antrcM 
" bfttisseti qui y Boui couBtruitoB." , ♦ 

Le ptix fitipuK' iC'tait do #00, dont |100 pay^s comp- 
tantet la balance* payable |100 lo 12 d^^ceinbro 1882 et 
4100 le^l2jde<5enibn) 1888, sans intftr^t. . L>>Uou est pour 
le versement dii, lo 12 d^combre 1882. ** N. 

L'jntime plaide quo par orreur Tappemnt lui adonn6 
possession d'uu' morceau do terro partie tlu lot num6ro J 1 
dansleSni^aiji^ au lieu du 4rae rang do Weedo^ ; qu'il 
i^**ucuirtitr«ftk la. pai;tie qu'il occupo, laquel^'appar-. 
tieut t\ ului nomm6 Demers; qu'il craint d'fetre troubU: 
dans sa posiiessiou par Demers, ot qu'il a droit de demau- 
der oaution a son vondeur en vertii de I'article 1685 0. 0. 

Le jugemeut a quo a decide que rintim6 avait un*^ jn«ite " 
sujet de crainte, et a condamn6 Tappelant k' lui donner 
caution. .' , . < 

Touto la question est de savoir si ce jugednent a 'en' 
raison de decider que suivant I'article 1636 C. 0., Vintim^^ 
avait lieu de craindre qu'il serait trouble. 

L'appelani r^pond d'abord A cette defense que I'intim^ 
a acquis le b^n^iice de la prescription d^cenmale/ mais 
cette pretention n'est pas soutenable, attendu que le der- 
nier acte difiere des precMonts. En 1881 on ajouta a- 
la description du terrain'^les mots : "ainsi qu'il a toujours 
6tfe recounu ava&t ce jour," qui ne se trouve dans ancun.. . 
acte ant^rieur A celui-1^. # ' ' *'■ . 

L'appelant invoque aussi la pTescription trentenaire^ 
qu'il allegue avoir 6t6 acquise piar I'intim^ et ses auteurs. J7 
II parait que la ligne de division tfacSe entre le 4me" 
et 6me rang par rarpenteur de la Gonronne remonte 
k Fannie 1818. En 1886 la compaghie des terr^ (''British 
American Land Co.") avait obtenu de la Couronne un 
octroi du lot en questfon avec plusieurs autres terrains 
situ^s au canton de Weedon. L'arpenteur de la Couronne 
tra9a vers cette 6poque une lig^je de division qui fut 
adoptee par les colons, siais qui difi(§rait de eelle d^u gou- 
vemement, de sorte que loi-sque plusieurs annSei apres 



m 






\ 



--> 



OOti^T OF QUIIEN'fi Bthat. 



%. 



M 



, 1MB. 
hiron . 



file a 6t6 recti H6e par rarpenteu/Riohatd, q«i**a r6tabH 
I'andienne ligno deVCouroniie/le raorrc^au do teprii on 
litige 8'eat trouv6 fairo partic/du frmo rang an Jiou* 4a 
4me, oomme t>n Tavait d'aboM <ru. .' . / 

LaoompAgnio poHsodo u^o grando aondne de'tflrr»in / 
daUB Weodon et a I'ait ihtir lus liguos ontro loa^' diffferente / 
rangs il y a^eut-Mro au^ela de trente ^ij8. >t^i^ aietto/ 
qwque olio po8B6daitl^M deux lotH No8. 11 dd4me„eVdii 
Tune rang. Aucuno/proscription »e pouvait jp^r consfi , 
qnent commejjicerXf'ourir, cur potfr qu'il y ait prescript , 
tion il faut un aiitagonisrae entro des paj-tiefl.. Oo nWt 
qu'en 1B69 que ces lots ont 6t6 posHf^dfes par des ^artief * 
ditfc&rentes, entre lesquoUoH la prescription pouvait avoir 
^ lieu. ' --''"• . i" „~ ■ ' ■ • - ■ 

/ I)tmcl1ntixj9£»n'a acquis ni la« prescription trentenaire 
oi la iwescription dfcoennalo, et ij pent craindi^ ^'fitxe 
troubl6-p«tt5.pomers. he tribunal me parait avoir agi.avec 
prudence «fn iaaintenant les pretentions de rintim6. et ' 
cQiftmo c'est und^ j^ffaire de 4?8«r^tion jtf pense qu'il vau't. 
mieux laisser lo ju^ejuent tel qu'il est/sauf la l6gdre modi- 
fipatioii que jo mentidunerai plus bas. , ' « . i 

*, D'ailleurs Demerf n'esi; ^m en cause, et cette d6eision 
no pent pas 6tre chose jug6eeontrelIui. 
II reste une question H0Hlev6e par l!appelant maisqui ' 

' ue m6ritepa6l'att«intionde cette Cour. L'appelant pr6- 
*^'!*^S9B?elejugoment'auraitdiiH;ondaraij^ej le dfifendeur 
li payer l^S/^ntins d'interdt out^e le capital, mais nous ne 
a6range^oJis'4>as un jugement pour une bagatelle comn^e ^ 
.oell4!i.H : de minimis mm curat lex. ' > ' .; \ J" 

La majoritfi de cette Oour est done d'opm-fe^j de confinner 

.. 1« jugement de la Cour Sup6rieure. en le T^foi|ni^' 8u» un 
point en favour de l'appelant. l)'apres lo Jjigement le 
cautio^netiaent pourrait durer indfifiniment^ et une action* ; 
8orait\peutT6tre nocossaire pour y mettre fin- Nous ordon-^ " 
nons ^pn cbnsi^quence que le cautipnnement dtfre pen- It' 
dant dix ans, ce qui 6vitera tin litige possible. /A d§faut \ 

•par l'^|)pelant de louruir ce ^autionue-^-^*^ -* ^^ * ^ 

4amtf^ Aj^yer a I'intimg la somme de 



,1 



^ 



'-f 



' I'll 



(I ; 
'- f i 










\\ est con* 



\ 



X -^^ 



4 









i 






W' 



*v- 



i: 







? 



UMk 
Bl 



TmSiin 



1 






'4 


i 1 


** v. 



/ 



• > •• 






■1 ( . <■ 






-?> 



P>: 



!■* r 



it* ■. 




>' 


T 


1 


i%' 


Hf 


|,i. 


glv 


.'j* 


™ 


,*'■ 






rK 


ttf 


ifl 


,'ii, 






H> 


^?. 


tl"' 





'^^ 



^ 



-A 



U, 1 



■4« 



^^ 






life:*' 



252 



MOKhlKAt LAW R«rORm 







miner d le 
ur noui'jul- 



DoRioN, J. 0. : — 

J.'ai ^pT<mv6 uii p«u d« dll 
raublfl <ji»'appr6heiide Tinti 
fifi«r ii ordoiiuer an cantioi 

I^ lignit de diViaion trao^^ar l^ <^(uiipajEniin dm tarn"^ 

a.C'tk adopt6<) oi m'onuue ^iidant longtompa, ot 

troiH ou quatto arpeut«nf8 en nient la jaatoM<v Cette ii 

certitudo quunt & la ligfie dn division, (t la InnfmniHiiirlr 

posaesaiou du Tintim^ et de. set attteura, 

s'il y avait jtt8t«» HV^td de, cTaindro aucuif trouble, Vais "Vii 

1 que c'est une mi^Uuie de discretion, et que la Oonr a quf»^ 

a trouv^' (][n'i| y awt Keu d'exiger un cauiiounement, jo 

ne in«i aeUH pM dnpoBejd d6rang^r^ oe jngt^mentA Si la 

Gonr avait d6<'M6 f^sje sens oppose, je n'aurais probable- 

ment pus ohaufl^ltUJjgement non plus. En matij^rt^s dis- 

cr^tionnaires "n,9uii, h^^sitons beauconp avant de r^nverser 

o le jugement i^'uno Obur ,1^ prpmidre instance. 

Jugement confirm6 ^ITnoii. juge Ramsay, di^) 

' L. C. Bitang^, pour I'l^pelant . 

Ponneton Sr^MlvetM, pour rintimS. 

(K.L.) -'- jw .. 



'f 



i - 



1". 



December It, 1888. 

Coram DoRiON, 0. J., BambAY, , I^bssisBj Crohs and 

Baby. J J. ;^^ ^;" 



LA COMPAONIEDE NAVIGATION DUBlCHELlW 

••qtelQr^'j "• •'■"■■ '^ 
^^ j {^fmdani below), 

^■■i^>f '*'■[ - AfPEMiANT ; 

AND 



,& ONI 



^v*^ 






. OORDfiiilA Sf.^EAN, 




{Plmntiff 




Mdf^ aaid_ Serpatit^Iiyury. stataitkxl by 



-.'H-' nig^j iere ^fl0rvtuit"meeta with: a& accidei 
Oio IfffdHpy diiticA ^pf his «mplo)nBetit, snd the accident is not 4li& 




ile engaged in 



> °re8ult^<^8i]|jKtav|lt or nett^igence <mi the iwiFt ofthe^mployer or of 
tliosu fqr wlioni IiS iu Tesponsible, the servant or his repreBen^yi<s 
lias no ri^bt to feoover damages froal the emnkyyer- 



rf- 



"^ 



.^r 



-J, 



.- » 




/ 




O60RT OF Qunmii ncNCH. 



m 



^K;*. 



k\ 



IMI. 






Tho Mition aroiMi oat of an accident which cx^currHd on 
the River St Lawr<!^e. near Var«nnen, in 1881, by whi.h vMSiftu 
r?im6on Paulet, huNlmnd of the rwHpondent, lost hi« life. %Si„ 
I'aulot was aecond officer on tho steamer Chambly, one of mJLi 
the appellantH ^bs^'Ib. On the 29th July, 1881, the 
Ohaml^ly wa« going down the river, when it wan hailed 
by a tug opjM)«ite VareiiJjmr TRiii tug wuh aMsinting a 
dredge which waa enga^ in dredging the channel iu 
'.4b»« paft of the river. Th\tug came up and tied on to^ 
the Chambly in order to ptiit on board ihe latter Mome 
I'lBpty hoxea deatiiHil forfSorel. The work was about 
lini«h«d, and Paulet waaJjyAtbe act of drawing one of the 
box«8 on board, when the two vessels suddenly aeparatdl } 
the box fell betvween them, and Paulet, losing his balaW, 
was pre(;ipitated into ^e river. He supported himself 
in the water for some lime, but finally sank and waa 
drowned. He had been married about a month, and his 
widowJ^oj^[ht^the present action against the company, 
cla ig|g gf2iio00dan\^es, (iharging negligence on the part 
of ti^baptain of the^^ambly, first, in^not securing the 
two vessels taore firpMl together, and, secondly, in not 
promptly going to \he nl^ur of 4he drowning man. 

The Court below (^^Mpu, J.) sustained the action, 
but taking into consideslR^^tb^ there had been some 
imphid«ilce on the part of Panl||^reduced the damages 
. to 1500. The company appealedS^ jKL ' ■ . 

4. G^^rmam, for the appellanjt :-<-^ , 

The evidence shows ihat the ^Ivefisels separated, not 
^because of the intfuffici^nicy of .the single cable used, but 
"because the rope watf not properly secured on board the 
-li%. JJMoteSver, Paulet acted very imprudently in leaning 
„ ove^^tbuugh he must have noticed that the vessels 
were separating, and in spite of the warning of several 
'■ persons on board. Paulet himsetlf^^as second officer, was 
responsible for the proper lashings, together of the two 
vessels. The, captain told him not to take away the side- 
rail, buCJie did so. He was the victim of his own care- 
lessness, the second question is, whether the captain of 



.-^- 



/ 



.'<*r 






I 

1 



llahnlkiii A 
Ontario 




i 



as t^ 



.1: -*•*..( 






#--■ 



if'' 









•264 MONTKBAL LAW EKTOBm J - 

"••• tlifi OhAmhly eiArt«d nlmiiolf itiffiniontly to r««rn«) tho 
«ri?t«IKn%i drowning man. Home of ttm wItnuNM«« blaniw thn can- 
tain for not throwing him a lif«<-pr«ii«rv«r, and for not 
B. gutting out a boat. Thia wouUl havt» mado no dittVtrenni, 
the atuami^r b«ung down Mtn^am. Th« (N^oplu on this tug 
throw him ^hAo and two rop««t, but Paulot, probably 
b«Mng un<-onmnouM, <Ud not uh«i th«m. Tho Judgo in th«' 
Court b«low waa of opinion' that Taulot probably might 
hav» Jmmmi ruH4*U(*d by a l)oat, but it h aubmittod that th« 
captain a(;t(;d for thu beat. It in uIho aubmittud that th«' 
-' judgmout of tbK Court b«^low ia vrrouoouM in holding th« 
umploy«>c liablu for an accidttnt uriaing frtnn a riak inci- 
dtmt to thu timployment iu which tho ducowud waa 
engaged. 

T. Bertrantl, for the roaporidont: — . 

Pauh't waa a young man botwoun twonty and twenty- 
live, and inoxpcriunuid' The^toamor waa at the time in 
command of the captain, and it waa the catitaiu'a duty to 
aoe that the vcHauIa were j[xro|)erly aei^ured tbgether. The 
accident occurred by the rope breaking. Then, when 
Paulet Wiia thrown into the atream, the <;aptain lost time 
in approaching the Hi)ot, aud when a ro|)e waa thrown to 
^ deceaacd it was too late ; he aank to rise no more. The 
captain had lost hia head, and adopted none of the meaua 
in his power to save the drowning man. Paulet waa not 
to blame for the accident, but even if he had been impru- 
dent the judgment ia correct and is supported ^.by the 
jurisprudence of this country. '^ " : 

Teshikk^ J. (<A'm.) : — ' , 
I am of opinion that the judgment should be con* 
firmed. It seems to me to be a question of appreciation 
of testimony. The Court below was of opinion that there 
had been negligence on the part of the captain and absence 
of discipline among the persons on board ; the means for 
saving people who might fall overboard were not at 
^ hand, as the law required /Ihe boats were not ready to 
■^ be launched, and there had been no practice in this 
necessary duty. I concur in this vipw, and I think that 
under the circumstances the judgment ought not to be 
di stur bed. :,/■ \ y 








COUBT OF QUmwV BKNOU- 



8sa 



IUbt, J. :— . * ' ' mt, 

<le U part d« U vhuvm du, uomm6 rauiot qui nM^rdu la "^SrE*" 
vie aa wrviou d« rappulaut«). ,, J^, 

Voici rhifftoriqun do c;«i malhounmx ttctridotit, t»jllo quo 
III proa ve nouHl'offVe: 

b> 29 juillot 1881, daiiM l'aprft«-mldi, 1« "Chambl)^" 
uii d«« vap*«ur8 d« la compagniti-appolanto, duiicondait lo 
Ht'Iiaureiit, lorM<ju'arriv6 vIh A-viii Varenuvs ii «'upproi5ha 
commci d'ordiitain^ (lun potit nunorquenr, du nom d« **/o*» 

Brown" au Rnrvive d'un cure-mole ftlors o(;capd k cr«u- ^ 

nor hi lit <hi la riviAre en oet endroit. L»i but do <5et abor- 
deineiit f'tait do pn-ndro A bord un cortairt norabro de 
boiteB vide« A (lestination do 8or«l ot quo Ton rapiwrtalt 
eiiHuito rvmplieB do proviiiionH. Co service s'etfe«tuait par 
le " Chambljr " dopuis nombro d'ann^^ et il arrAtait 
i<i, chaquo seinaine, uiie fois eh desi endant do Montreal 
c't uno autre en remontant verH cette eit6. 

Le mairi do Tintimfe dtait engag6 Hur lo " Chambly " de-' 
puis 6 A 6 aus et, au jour en question, il y wnipliHsait * 
depuis quelque temps les fon<;tion8 de se«oud ou eontre. 
maitre. Im devoirs qui lui iinionibaient lomm^el ^taient 
do commander la manoBuvie et de voir A la rf'«eption et 
A lalivraisou du fret sur Jc vainmr. Lo "Ohambly " s'6- • 
tant done rapprochjj du " John Brown," I'fiquipago du pre- 
mier .jet& uhe amarre sur To second oA elle fut bien arrftt^e, 
et Ton pro<!6da, de suite, au transbordemeut des boites 
en question. Pendant ce temps, les ^eux vapours descen- 
dttient tranquillement au gr^ du co^rant. Contrairement 
ttux ordres qui lui avaient d^A 6t6 donnfes A cet 6gard, ^ 
Paulet enleva la lisse sup6rieure du gangway ou passage 
do sortie et, qubique la chose no ftit pas de son ressort 
mais bien des matelots sous ses ordres, il se mit pr^ip 
tamment A I'cBuvre lui-m6me. Tenant d'une i^ 
chelle qui Conduisait du pren^ier pont an pout sui 
de I'autre il recevait la boite qu'il passait ensuite^s^a, 
homm'e de I'fequipage. Afin d'atteindre la boite il se pen 
chait compUtement en dehors du vaisseau et cela au 
point que plusieurs, vpyant le danger auquel U s'e^poaait 



=»^= 



^^ f 






■■^ 



i 



--i'^ 



^\ 




y' 






% 



..*> 



266 



MONTJREAL LAW REPOkTa 



ainsi, lui firent des representations et lo mirent en lb;ardu 



Sa 



i •„ 



'ST" 



uJjj^ffpnju contre'^8 conseqnences sSritmses de s^n imprudence 
''^Onurio* sfeulo r^ouso I'ut " envoye^, enyoyez toujouwsl^ " On cu 



k 

St. Jmu 



■i,'.'.^' 



^'.^. 






I. >, 



i« *>•-*: 






4 . >. 



.V 



A,' 









.*■ .*■ 




:/fc-i*. 









etait rendu a ravaht deruiefo boito; lep douic vaisseadx du- 
taut 1'6p6ration s'etaifeut graduellumcnt quelque peu eloi- 
g|i68 Tun de Tautrc et Pault^t u'eu avait pas moins c6)i- 
ti^u6 son travail. Le tovlr>de la ciuquieme et detniere 
bottie etant arrive, Tespace cJtHkles separart alors etait deja 
*de pjusieuri^ pieds, el les matelots sui le "John Brown " 
•^yant touts!! coup eohappe cette boite^Paulet qui la tenait * 
dj^ja par uncles poiguees ne.put resj^t<* a lasocousse que 
cela lui imprirUa, perdit I'eqfiilibre. et, l^chant I'i^chelle oii 
entrain^ sous le'pbids, it tomba a'4'eai( & la suite de la 
boite. ^-lusieurs personnes avaient o'emarque la c&ndufte 
imprudente de Paulet et ne filrenf nuUemient sUrprif de -.^m 
ce qui arrivait; ^ ^- -^ • 

*' Gepe^dant,' cet accident caus^, tout Diaturellement b^m 
covvp' d'escitation parrai^ ceux , qjdi ^ient sur les deux 
vaisseaux, et l^n courut epi toute h&t6 tin ti^lonaer Je ca- 
pitaihe Lamoureux q)^i^ Qroyani;''touteS leg boites misesa 
son bord, avq^l dejaj^oune le signal du de{>art. De suite, |^^ 
il fait arrdter lion vapour ^ donne Tordre-de^ r6u verier U -* 
machine afiii'.d'aller an secQuw du;;:tnalheijtfuk, s'il en est :■ 
encore temps. Ij(^ capitaine qui etait a ses c^ocAes, pour,, ' 
mjeeervir de rejEpregsion vrsit^e, n'avalt eiU-i aupjine cojaf 
naissance..d^ raccident. v» , * . ' '' „' 

%a. tombant a Veau Paulet dispamt- et fut entrain^ pu'le 
conrant ; il revint'^ la surface de I'eau un instant aprjes^et,'' 
s'y . etant maintSnu . quelques ., minutes, disparut ensuit<»' 
pour ne plus reparaitre ; il etait* noy6. " ' . • - 
. En vbyant tdmber cet Jiomme il'eau; le " John Bro^n '* ' 
llicha Taraarre du '' Ghainbly " et se portage reci^ns .sur * 
Paulet^deux autr^ chaloupes allerent aussi immediate- 
ment a son seconrs, mais le tout en vain. Le^" Gham^^ly ", 
demeura la encore quelque tenSps et son capitaiiie voVaat 
qu'il n'y avait plus rien a faire, apres avoir donn^ des 
instructibns relativemen^jan^echejches a ^tr^ futep pour 
rflrouyer le corps;],.^||Qptlh^uii^nx second de soil- bord, 




' N 



^ 



COURT OF QUBENTB BENCH. 



m 

Maintenant, la demanderesso-intim^e dit en sqmme i 
I'appelante : ' . , 

lo • ijlon mari a pfiri par yotre nfegligence. Yous der 
vi«;z faire amarrer les de^x taisgeaux mieux q^'ils ne 
retaient et, s'il est tontb6 k Vm% k vous la faute. 

2©. Dans tons les cas, une fois 4 reau, tocub n'avez'iMB 

omploy;6 les moy^ns de sauvetage ordinaires pour le sAu- 

voT 4p la mort— et vpttg 'me devez des dommages-intferdts 

a raisoh*,^ r^tat db dfetresse et de pauvrete . dans lequel 

laprivahflfesoudai^ede inon mari m'ajet6.^^^^ * - « 

. Sur le premier poini, la prettve est tout a fait' contra 

les pr6tentione( de Tapp^lantev. Paulet 6tait cbntre-maitre 

:ftJ)QM,du "CHambly'*^t laitianoBuvre fitait entieremeut 

lj^J#>?»J5>ontr6te 6t;Sielte a'6t6 mal faite.il nejpeut que 

I ^ s'ii^nt'er la chbie--i| i agi contrairem^nt a,\it ordres du 

(•iipffain4 et.il afkit^reftyede la plus grande imprudence 

dhr^s t«us ses liaouvemejits durani le trav.aiL qu'il s'^ait 

* Im-m^me i1hapos6. ,* ' * 

/' Je CMi^is qu'il^y^?«l des cai^ pu Icj -maitre doit prot^ger, 

son s*i^itetir c^treie^es propres imprudences, say^ir : 

. Iprsqu'il est mis en preseace d^i\,ottVTage auquel il n'est,: 

P(is,hal)itue ef q^i pe# offrir' ciVrtains dangers, le m«fttVe 



doit mettre sbh seryiteul-'llur' 8«'i 



1888. 



Ofe,d« 
.-.^•tion da 
Aiobellea k. 



Naylsation 
.ionellea 
Ontario 
' A 
St.J«u). 



■X-- 



i 

SI 









■»V 



:«r<l% et lui. faire con- 



iilre et Je pr^ujitp^- canf re les perits auxquels il s'^x-, 
[SO ^ raison. de soii igi^gjuce ou soh impjudeiloe. , & / 

^n nl«d>elot de Hnit .ans d'ex- 
'fiivail tons ],es ans dumnt 



pc|s«3 jj raison. ae son ig 
:ici tel n'est pas le ^ja^j 
pt'rienee etqui a vii fair? 



, f 



'■'*!' 



le u-m^^dfe la navigation. Trefaitoflacieretcce t|-jfvail 
• jie lui inbombait point, il 6tait au contraire du rcssortde 
ses subalterttes. (tep^ndant, il le fait lui-m6me, non pas 
tel qnil se pratiquait:ordinair4im^t, puisque sa d^mar- 
cjii; imprudenteet ppacipif6e1ui attfre lei^seryations ^b 
hommes d'exp6riei^" qui le roy^iiant faire, de ceux qui 
et^i^nt dans Thabitudc d'op6i»t^Je transbordement de 
o^ho^s d'nii yapenr a l'ai|tW |ia^irfe pas non plife 
les bohs. conseils, les'lagetf avip. qiiillii sdht - dQBth6& pji^ 
K's personnes prUdentes et expgriment^es qui sent aupi'ds » 

I d»>J«rcH»?rait ne pas s'en pr6bc<3uper le m'oins du monde. 

*^hl ^^^ »J ne repond point et afax autres, deflieuraiit tou- 






\ 












'\p 



f. 






^ 





%'■ 









'Jt^ 



■; I 




.**•- 

-1«'''> 

'^.r 



■». 



If 



268 



MONTREAL LAV(r rM^OETS. 



sc 



1, 

• 

1 ,'■' 




l--'\ 






1 



A 

St. JeMB. 



p': ■; ,^,': 




* 


t 








. *■" , 



d?' 









Iv^'"tioH*du3^'*^ dans la position perilleuse qu'il aumt prise, il 
"onMo* ponton te do, repoudre " amouez, amoneis toujours," som- 
blant di]|^ : cola no vous regardo pas' 

Spas cfes circonstanoes, sorait-il justo, raisonuablo (!»> 
fair« tomber I'iinprudence do la conduitp de I'aulet sur 

-ses maitros? Le jugoment clont est appol udmet rimpiu- 
donco de P;(ulot et, en oonsoquem^o, fait une diminution 
dans lesdommages^intorfits qu'il accorde a sa vt^uve, miijs 
^' il rcsproohfe ji ll»il|>elanto, dans la porsonno du capilaino La- 
moureux, do ji'avoir ijoint fait mottro los chaloupos du 
" Chambly " a I'oau pour allor^porter secours ai' Paulo t ot 
par la n 'avoir pas fait son possible pour sauver cet infor- 
. ivokk, C'est la le deuxieme griof do rintimee. II pent y 

' avoir eu lA une . erreur de jugoment, mais non cett** ne- 
gligence qui fait condam^^r en dommages-interfits colui 
qjut'^^ep^end coupable. ' La majorite des temoins enton- 
4us. et les mieux renseigiifes, difont que la chose otait 
"' parfaitemont inutile sous les cii^onstances. En effot, il 
y avait la plusieurs embarcations qui? se son<,JljAteesd'aller 
ve^s I'homme qui se uoyait. Et elles etaient beaucoup 
plus &a. moyen de le fairg, sur le champ, quo ne Tauraiont 
e£6 les chaloupes du " Chambly," eussent-olltes ete mises 
a I'eau. Le "Johii Brown," un tout petit remorqueur, 

. facile a conduce par consequent, s'est assez rapproche de 

' Pauiet pour que de son pont on ait pn Jeter a I'infortune, 
paf^eux' fois, une corde de sauvetage dont il ne lit, cepou- 
d^t, aucun cas et lui tendre une perohe qu'il ne parut 
point mdme remarquer,'quoique I'uue et I'autre fussent a 
'saportee et I'aient mSme toucho. Qu'il ait paru inhumain, 
cruel m^me aux yeux de certaines personnes, I'acto du 
capitaiue Lamoureux qui n'a point Jlait descendre ses ca- 
nots a I'eau pour aHer au secours de cet homme qui so 
noyait„ je le comprends. II y a Une foule de personnes qui, 
dans de tels ca§, n'ecoutent que leura sentiments d'huipi- 
nite, de phil^ntrophie ; elles font abstraction des circons- 
tances dans lesqi\elles s'est produit raccident„et de c^les 
qui I'entourentf eljes perdent de vue ce' qu'un capitaiue 
4bit aux autres personnes a son bord et elles yieninait 
dire ee qu'elleB auraieiit voulu voit^faire dans roccasion 



**. 



i^^ 






' - iJi-'- • 



J % . 



." . . / 



^•1 t 



•jiit prise, il sc 
ouJQurs," scui- 



COU^T OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



250 



Ht. Jean. 



-Hj'est o# que] pliaaumK. temoins de I'intimeo ont fait. ««b 
&.'lou eux, alors m^me qup. lea ombarcatiohs aiuaient 6te „^cie:«o^ 
ni^l^lemeut desceudues, ^u moius les convenances au- R'^h":^^-* 
mieut ete respdiftees ; ils sont revoltes aussi du fait que " 

lovapeur "CVrably- ne sdit pas demeure plus loL- 
temps sur le lieu du sinistre apre's la disparution de 
Paulet. Le c«i]f)itaine n'a pas fait ce qu'il aul^kit du fai*e 
rupetont-ils av«ic riutiraee. ' ' 

Ku rabsence d'liiVe Qjiminelle indiffererioe vis-a-vis de 
ses raatelots en dau-er le .apitaine, sous^e teltes circons- 
taiices, ue saurait fifcre responsable decequileur arrive 
Get officier est le ra,eittfeur juge des moypns a emplayer 
[mir effectuer un sauvetage. U responsabilit^ de sa po- 
sition, mu experience des choses, son bon jug^ement le 
guideront, 6t dans 1^ cas actuel nous Ue voyons rpV que 
It'capitame Lamoureux ait failli aux devoirs quiluiin- 
corabaient et comme officispj et coWme citoyen. 

Sur le-tout, k majority de (^ette Cour en est vfetfue aux 
mfimes concluisig^ris auxqueHes elle en est arrivee dans la 
oause Desraclu^^ Gauthier (5' L. N. 404), et trouve que 
Paulet a ete victime de sa propre imprudence et que sa 
veuve ne pent imputer aujourd'hni a l'apl)elante- la trisfe » 
position dans laquelle elle^ d^omm, k raison di^al- 
heureux afccident en qU^ion.' ' " ►J 

.La Oour est .done d'opinion qu'il y a mal jug6 par le 
jngem^ent de premiere instance et I'iufirmant, "maintient 
lappelavec depens.^* ' . ' , v 

This ip an action >rdamages by the widow of ^ man 
employed on board of the Chambly, one of the appeflants'; • 
steamers, and who was drowned while so emplqyed by 
the negligence, it is alleged, of the appellants the 
judgment appealed from awarded the widow, $5fQ^nd 
the reasons giyen fdr tffe judgment are that there 'was ' 
tault onthe part of the appelitots, and although there 
was perhaps also fault on th^ paid of the decised " con- 
siderant que dans notre 'droit, lorsqu'il y-^a faute, impru- - 
dence Oil negligee ,conimune,^ la victime de rkccident 



4 

i 



f 



US, 



:i 



^tit^f 






<|| 



•*n 



,*^f 



<?*■ 






^' 






;>*», 



■ <■':- 



'C 



i 



nil 
, i ^ 

' ) 
; t 

i 

1 

< 
■ 


I* 
1 



MO 



'■It: 



MONTREAL LAW REPORT^. 



**•• qui a eprouv6 un dommage ne peut 6tro condamn6o ji It- 

K^iStton'du supporter seule, et qu' en ce cas lo dommage doit fttn- 

^ontllrio * partage ontre ceux qui out participo a la faute ou rimpni- 

B't.'j(im.jM deuce ou A la negligence," the widow was entitled to 

*, ' some damages. Another reason for the judgment was 






'Jfp*' 






!WSf 



tS 



f 



* «■■-!- ■ 




I that the officers of the Chambly did not take measiireK to 
save the lit\i' of deceased by lowering boats, and that by 
negletftiuB' to .conform tp the provision of the 37 Vict. «a|). 

' 80, pec. fl.'thoy had probably lost the prai-tice of lowering 
Itpats, sflid^.that there is a great probability that dticeascdV 

»'^liie might liJtyeb^n saved. 

The immerisi^ difficulty of reducing the motives of 
judgments t6 perfectly logical '"•considerantsj" embrtuing 
all fhe findings pf the Court in fact ami la^y, is so great 

almost evi.>ry 



in 



\. 



hi' 



that it is a^i eas)^ task to (iriticise them 
case. IJiii withoutente'rin^ into minute criiiwism, whit h 
would be (Aidless and unprofitable, it s our duty, to ex- 
amine and weigh the reasons whfiili hairerl^d the Court 
below to its conclusion, and in doing ^o in this case I 
am constrained to say that I cannot <ioncur^ with tlic 
the learned judge in the principles he invokes. In tlu^ 
first place, if Paulet lost his life by the failure to lower 
boats, and if the company is responsible^ -for* the officers 
of 4he Chambly not low^ering the boats' tht^n there is no 
reason for mitigating the dainages, on actsimiit of the ]»y- 
sumed (;ontrib.utory negligence of PauJ^|. /iln the second 
place, the possibility of t'^ontributory 'iJ^igence pii tiie 
part of Paule>t, was no groifnd'for d|mi^shing the dam- 
ages to be awarded oh account of hi^j^'iith. On the t>tht'r 
baud, it^'is to be observed, that tlij£jj^t:pi'obabilitV*Huit 
the deceased's life might have been saved hud boats hym 
lowered from, the Chambly, is ua;grouud to support a 
judgment of damages. The disaster mui^t be the dirept- 
afid proximate efiect of thS culpable act. It is not 
sufficient to say that it is.j^bably so. y x'^ , 

. Acrain, I cannot concur entirely in tlw stateujeht of the 
law in the 6-ow$Werg»«/ aboyew quoted in anQ,ther respect. 
It Jiff* doubtless a geAexal pryaeiple of tlie oH law that 
"^very sligjit act Qf negltgenct^on tl^e partj of the sufterei 

-,.,.. •■■»_.' II ■ -. ..■--. ../ ■■'■■■ _'• ^K «fc -'.-.'_..,. - 



l^ , 


■^ : . : < -,. 






:x-:.v' 




•'.■■'■■.■' ''i , V." 




— ^ — T-^h ;; ^-v— 


. ■ ' J " 1 






.-.■•'1 


'"IT!, ;„■ ., . ■ ..;■;■■■"■ 



- ^ :v 



.1, "> ■■>» 



v^. * ■. «.: ■■-.1 



* 



.^v;;';^' 
^ 









I-... 



■* 



COURT OP QUIJESEtrs BBNTCH. 



261 







1* 



does not provide a prot«K3tion for the flagrant wrong-doer ; 

but in his discretion in awarding damftgos, tL .sTpdge N.^&oJdu 

mitigated them ac<M)rding to (ii'cumstancGs, As ,1 under'' ^oniiriS * 
stiind it, the Engllwh law, although it expresses its rule sujean. 
in a Home what more absolute form than tho French 
law, really aimed at the Name result* lloth the' fiimiish » 

and thp Freftch law started from tho principle^ volAnnon 

fit injum. The m^li^nce to \wy^hU is techuicftlly called , 
" ( oiitributofy," must be 8UiV»iegiigence ^as essentiaUf ' 

(ontributed to t|ie disaster? f need not irfsist furt^fftr on 
this point now, aar in the case ol' Dekorheg a 4 <^GSulftwr, 
"^PPrted itt 6' Leg^ News, p^^^ thei^ is ii kttempt to 
express fuliy my view.jori this :poiil|\ CTur code* has 
attempted 16 introduce a'^ystem somewhat different. It 
says there'is but one fanlt oinlSftnVe c^r^. So. that a maU 
walking ;n Notre, Dam6'^ni«t is ..(o be m lAueh on^the 
alert as if ^e wiis oi1^t|joMgivof '' Xabl** Roc ^Irory- 
body knows^ this. jV fihsuTil, aiid,^as it is imppfisiWe to 
MniO',car^, the .t>ragma£i&tl innovation of the code has 
had but little ef^ct. ' '• " .- ..: ' 

ComiHg to the merits of thi? \mse, wkoh hds been 
swelled to. the mpsteitmbijdiuarf proportious (the evi- 
dence^extends fa-'alibttts SdO printed pages), I find much 
fim«i- wafted On ovidencetis to the absence of efforts on the 
prt of_the. officer^" of -the Chambly to take ady activ.e' 
stops to saye I'aUlet'k life. " Failure to take proper precau- 
tions t© sate the life of a sei'vant in jeopardy in cOns?- 
(juiuce of ihe rfervices he wias rendering to his employer; 
might be a ground of , damages ; biit it would be neces- 
sary, to prove that th« man's- death of tlie injury was 
lanscd by .a fculpable neglect, and I don't thittk 
employer jaToijld be liable owing tfe^ evidence that" 
tiling might have been* dQ»e that was jioi done. 
certaiu;y a little surprising that the people on board the 
Chinnbly did not at once Idwer'a boat, from" mere impulse, 
or as Charbonneau says,in better language than I can 
commi^nd, ''snivaht nptre! conscience je crois que c'est 
na'ossairfe qu'on fasse, afu^mic^ns I'essai, at /on doit pas 
mnhe attendre aj>res- ua intre." But- the balance df the 



V 







«f" •■' vj 



/' 



% 



^ 






f 1 '■•: 



• ^4 



x| 









T~r 









*» 






■■■ V 



J.: \*^f- 



AV'^ 



\ 



862 



rad' 



MONTRlirAL LAW REPORTS. 



'•' .' 


•'»- 






i 




hi. 


i. 



~MMt 



evidence shows that it would have been usc^less to du 






N»*»tion*au i^ t^i" ^*8®- Besides this, other means were being taktiii 

**'oi^rio* to rescue Paulet, which appeared to oiler better Chance 

stJeiHi. of success, find the captain may very well have thought 

that contusion and danger would arise from a number ut' 

boats hurrying to the spot at on«'e. The' sjyi^e excellent 

witiiess, Gharbonneau, recognizes the discretion of the 

captjain. He sayfe : — " II doit «^tro juge de la position." I 

then^fore that the failure of the olHcers lo 

>at under the circumstances renders the com- 

iii damages. - ^^ 1 X i 



'>,!•' 




• s.. 






k;, 



IP'* j* -* 



l^---^ 

^*»'i^. 



"\ 



=? 






IS.., 



/. 



k 



..'. 4- 



~¥' 



eifce adduced by plaintift' on the other point— 
tp the negligence of the company in allowiug 
eamdr to go alongside the John Br^wn for the 
pUrpM^f'triinshipment, with only one hawser, is very 
slight ^deed: It! amounts to this : that it is very com- V; 

, mon^jLo use one hawser, that the Ghambly had been 

' doing it alifiost ev<?ry week that summer without dilli- 
culty, and that twto hawsers or perhaps several would 
have been better. The test of negligence is not whethei- 
greater precautions might have been taketf and the acci- 
dent avoided, but whether ordinary precautions, those 
usual in the circumstanceSjWere taken. Morasse^ plaintitt^^ 
witness, is asked (p. 48) : " Con8id6rez-vous qu'il est pru- 
dent d'aborder deux Ibatiments avec une seule aman^ ; sur- 
totit quand ils march en tdoucement et qu'ils desMndent 
le (mirattt?" And he ansWers:. "Qa se fait souvent. 
jikfais je pen^o qiie ce serait plus prudent d'en mei|j|. 
plusieurs. Plus il y a d'amarres, plus c'est prudent." 
Every sensible and conscientious witness wo\ild say 
exactly as Morasse, that the„ more the precautions taken 
the greater the prudence, but this just shows the unprac- 
ileal nature of this sort of testiiriiQfliy". ,,In addition tpthis, 

'Paulet was the man in charge. It wai| his duty to take 
the necessary precautions, and ij^ with^his eyes openji he 
did not take thgm, he cannot turji -round and seek to 

4hrow hisowii fault — if fault !*here be — on the shoulders 
of another. -Another of plaintiff''? witnesses, ('ottvrette, at 
page 82, is asked: " Croyez-vous qu'il y a imprudence, 



m\ 


• 


fr , 




t'" 


» 


' « 


X 




. M ; ■- 


^ 






t 




. - , 




■ • ' ■ ' *■■■' 


W 




tt 


' 14 


«■.-■• 


II 


.... ■ , .-, 

.■•■■■ 




* 

r t 






." I 


• 




1- 


• 


It 


^ 




' 






HKjTx' - ■ 







.>" 



.>, ■ 1. .. ^ 



OOTtRT OF QTTEBWS BENCH. 



1168 



puisque cela bo fait gSnAralement dans an cas oii il n*y a 
quo qaolquesefTutM tV trausborder et non do pasBagers ?" 
Ho aj^wors : " Non, il n'y a pas d'imprudence dans oe cas 
la, s'iPpn results dcB malhours c'ost puremdnt ac<;idental 
et c'est an dc^^BqueB de la navigation." 

It seems to me that this simple bargeman has pointed 
out the ,trao solution of the qaestion. I think there was 
no faalt on the part of the captain, and I can see none 
on the part of Pajjjlet. He perished accidentally in 
endeavoring zealoasly to perform fiis daty towards hisem- 
jployors, an4 for the loss his family hai^susta&ed the finite 
powers of the law afford no remedy. I am to reverse. 



isn. 

Lft Cl«. (le 

NaviMtion <la 

Riohelieu k 

Ontario 

St. Jeui. 



/ 'I*concar. 



Paulet was second officer of the steamer, and 
it was his daty to see that the vessels were properly fas- . 
ttMied together. The captain seems to hav^dono all that 
could be expected to save the life of Paalet. He did not 
8U«!cecd, bat the company cannot be made responsible, ' 

The following is the jadgment of the Conrt :— 
. " La Coar, etc. * ' v ^-, 

" Consid6rant qae I'intimfie n'a pas proav6 les all6ga6s 
esfientiels de sa declaration et notamment que son marl 
feu Simfion Paalet ait perdu la ^ie par la fkute et la n6gli. • i :, . 
gence de la compagnie appelante ou de 'fees dmploy^s - 
mais qu'au contraire il appert par la jpreuve, que le dit > 
Simeon Paulet s'est noy6 par un pur accident auqnel il 
etait expose par suitt^ des devoirs qu'il avait h remplir ^ Ji>- 
bord du Chambly, Tuii des vaisseaux de I'appelante ; V'\* 

" Et conBid4rant qu'il y a errour dans he jugement^ '^ 
rendu par la cour 8ttperieai| sifegeant \ Montreal le 30me ^ k 
jburdejuinl882j --- ^ ^' '} /'\" 

" Cette Cour casse et annuls le dit jugement du SOjfBLe 
jour de juin 1882, et prooSdant a rendre le ■jug^mei^t 
qu'aurait du rendre la ditQ Cour de premiere instance, „, 
nmvdie I'action de I'intimee ttvec depens," etc. (Dt^pm- 
/te«<«, THon. Juge Tessier.) ' — • - \ — ^- 

A. Oemiain, attorney for appellant. ' 

T. Bertrtind^ attorney for respondent 



'I 



\. . 



-.? 



■mi 





"••••. 


7% 






;'•■«► ' 


"••*;j 





' 



.>-^ 



< t' 






1 


/ 






; 


f *" 




1 
1 








L 



ItOKtlUUi LAW REFOim. 



k 



May 27, 1884. 



Cinam DoiiioN, O.J., Ramhay, Tkhhikr, Oiujhs, Baby, J.T 

JAMRS McSHANE, the younoeh, 

{De/enthnt below), 

,» " Al'PELLANT ; 

ANI> 

*■ . ' ■ > 

1 r THOMAS |IENDERSON et al., 

1 (Plaintiffs Mow), 

Respondknt. 



Charter-party — Time — Re/ertion of Contract. 



Tho appellant, in January, 1H79, agrtHxl to cliart«ir a HtciamHliip, for fho 
■ carriagM of liv« cattio tn KnKlaml, and the ttrriulitiunii/ut' tho <!liartor- 
purty wont that tlio stBuniHliip Hjionlil pnMwwi to l^ntit^al with till 
convoniunt H|ieo<l to arrive thoro 'bt'twcon' the o|RminK of iiavigation 
in 1879, and thoruiifler to run ro^ularlv l)otw<wn Mon^al and Lon- 
don, and to be diuimtchod from Montreal in' n^'ular >(itiati<>n with 
other stttanierH to t)e oharti^red np to Ist Oiitober, 1870.\3iiivig»ti(iii 
opeflOil at Montreal t^bont Ist May, but th^» HteawHhip <lid' not' rtrrivo 
there until 5tli June when the appellant refuiHMl t4> load. 
/ Held, that there waa not a aulwtantial («niplian(t) with the contract on'" 
the part of tho Hhip, and that the ai>i)ellant was entitled to throw up 
the ehartop-party. 

The app«ial W«8 from a judgment oi'the SuperiorCourt, 
Montreal (Johnson, J j, 31 May, 1882, maintaining tb««. 
respondents' acj;ion. Tho judgment was in 'the ibllowing . 
terms-f-r- i ^-s ^^ 

"TheCottrt, etc... ' * 

" Considering that this action is Brought to recorw 
from the ddendant $4,132!)80 for dead freight, dueltn res- 
""pect of the ship ' Emble|io||e '' of which the planntifTs ti^ 
owners, under a charter-paily between*the plaintMfs am 
defendant in the decWatioa s^^t forth : • 

" Gonsideriiig ithat th^ de^fendant hm pleaded; several 
pleas, all of which were Ibandojied at the argument 
except the fourth, by -wt|fii»h |t is alleged tJMtt the contratt^ 
between the parti«'« 8tipi||ii||e^ for the aniyfU ^ihe said 
«hip at the port bS^l^ntTeM^'&fihe'^pemug df the Bnvi- 



« *•. 



■4 



■* 



^H- -0% 



a « 



M\. 








... r • " 


• 


1^' 










T 






t 




i^^^^^B 




^^^^^^^^^^^^^A^^^,' ^ 






■^ 1; 



COURT OF QTTEEITO BENCH. 



96^^ 



gation of IBt'J, and that she did not bo arriv«, and conae- 
qiKUitly tho plaintili'H havo no right of action ; iggt 

" Considering that tho 8aid hi8t-nuMition<>d phia nPiiot 
proved, and that the; said chartor-party did not HtipitlatM 
IWr the arrival ol'thi^ said nhip at the port ol' MoHtroal at 
tilt) optm'ing of navigation, but that it waH. to arrivt? be- 
.twi'en tho op»'nihg of navigation, 187!>, and th»Toaitt(r to„ 
ran regularly, mid with dit^patch betwoon Montrnal and 
Jjondon, "and tp b«' dispatcht'd from Montreal in regular . 
rotatioii with ijther Htuai^icrs under rharter to the Hame' 
f'harterers^ byldJItbreiit ownern, and that the ovidenoe 
HhoWB that the HftidHhip anived at Montreal on the, 6th 
of Jnnij, and in snflident time, aeeording to the evident " 
meaning i^nd inii^ii of the parti.es to the waid contract'^, 

" Doth disiiitss all th« pleas of the defendant ; 

" And eonHidi^Hiig that plaintitlK have jirovcd the alle- 
li^atiouH of t|ieirifiil!»!!l^r4tion,>doth for the eauses, matters 
and thiugH in sard dt?clarution set forth, u'U judge and con- . 
derau thtr saj^d«vi'en(lant to pay and satisiy to said plain- 
tills the ^aid sum of !|4, 1 3'2.8(f," eto,(') 

J^ H. Kerr, Q.C., tor the appella#,, X ' • / r^' : * ^" 

H. Abbott, for'fhe sesponde'uts. * <- 

■ ■ di«4,-ji :--■■■''' ' ' ''-'■■- ' ■ ' ■^>'-;'.^' 

Thte respondents, as owners of the steamship ' Emble* 
hm(^ \ Wing an attiMi aCsrainst the appellant for'violation , 
oT* charter entered into ar Glasgow, in Scotland, in Jan- 
aary,^ 18T9, for the employment of that vessel between the 
iwrts of Montreal, in<. Canada, and London, in England, 
daring the navigation setteon of J879. Th.e.^ action is for 
what is called dead freight, for the appellant hilK'^ing 
-9^used to load the vessel pursjiant to the charter. X.^-,* 
„ The appellant m§etB theaci^on by .a number of pleas, 
only two of which, the fourth andlaat^ are seriously urfjred,' 
tilt' rest being abandoned. 

• By the fourth plea, the appellaJit alleged that, by the 
terms of the charter-party, the ' Emblehope 'was to arrive 

(') The text of tHe observationti made by the learned judge in.pronoun- ^ 
<ii>^ judgment will T»e;;found in 5th Legal News, p. 196. 







' 1 





;V\- 




Y :. 

MONTREAI. t 



■t^ 






vm. 

I* 

Ili'iiilrnon. 




■ ■MK 



*1M.''J^' 



*#(%.' 



ning of th«f navigation, 
UHual tjnie, vix, the firNt 



c 




ftt the port 61' NJ<)iitr^,'*iii th« o\ 

1H79, which took pltw-i* uhaiit th! 

of May of that year, and thiit kHo only iirrivud on thti Atli 

of Juno; by which <h'lay,,th(» appt^llanl waH fV««'<l from 

hahility and (>ntith>d to nwcind thu contract, which lit> 

4<lo«t«'<l to do and throw up tho <'hartor. 

Tho Uuit ploa-wiiH a defense en fait. . ■ " . 

Tho" Emblohoptt ' only Hailod from Barrow, in England, 
o«-°th«' 2l8t May, lKt^»; th«r8l8t May in montionod in the 
^ovidouce, hut that in Hup|H)N(>d to di) a iniHtako. Shi> 
iirrivod at tho port of Montroal on tho 7>th of Juno,iindoii 
the 0th notiiiod McShano of her roadinouft to rei'dive cargo, 
ana 'i>rt)te«tod on his rofusal to comply with hor doniand. 
. Th^j master thoroupon procured cargo at a low«r rate of 
Jroight, and. the present action was by thtr owners to > 
recover $4,182.80, Ions of prof|t8 on 1iO( first Voyage within 
the time siM'cified in tho chajFter. ^: 

the material provisions of tho charter-party were, that 



the ship should With 
to Montreal to arriv 
1879, and thereaft( 
tween Mpntreal^and 
treal in regular rotation 




f^onient speed sail and proce<Hl 
Itween opening of navigation, 
tlarly with %U dispatch lie- 
to be dispatched from Mon- 
th other steamers under qharter 
to same charterer up to Ist October, 1870.' In t'harterer's 
option, one week interval may take place between the 
sailing of each steamer from Montreal, and there load a 
full and completti crtrgo of livagcattlo, as many as tho 
vessel can carry ; which cargo thie said menthant McShane 
hereby engages to ship, and being so lomdedi shall thcre- 
l^'ith proceed to I^ondon and deliver the sSEie immediately 
on arrival, freight for the same being paid at the^ rate of 
£6 stg. per head on all cattle shipped up to Ist of August, 
and je5 ptg. per head on all shipped between that date and 
Ist October. Penalty for non-p'erformaiice to be tho esti-^ 
mated amount , of freight. 

It is to be observed that no time is mentioned when 
the vessel should^ail from England, but from the date of 
the charter to the tin\e when she was to reach Montr^il, 
ample time is allowed and no roai^onable excuse couldtM 



V 



^ 



..i^- 






•h- 






,# 



■■■./, 



■■:%;, 



.COITIIT OF QUF.Elfi nRNCI 



S67 



i 



IWU. 



^ J t«l for h«;r iio^ ren(;hihg Moitti;«)al withm thfl tl«»lfty 

ii)^ri!od upon, irthe timftfor that |mr|H)H«i Im madti (^rtain.« »'«'J^ 

tSiHumlntion might douMloMH huvo Ih'.oh iiidulg^id ia tm to »*«"J«»*»»* 

tlu' «orrtM;t mouning of tlm <*hart«'r m rogardH thb date, 

luid tho ruNpoiidentH thtt^iNolvoM not AttHrh«*d to Ihu ox- 

jiroHMioii what niM»inH to havu l»»'«n the Inn* iiieaiiing of the 

partieM. The term "between" huft been inadvertently used 

iiM if the writer had iivtended to speeify two ^latuH, hut it 

seemed to have immediately o«'«uirred to the writer that the 

Di>ening of navigation «ouUt not he i^utily pla«ed hetwtten 

tv^o Hpe(!i(ic dates. The intention to give two Hpe<uilc. 

(lateii with an interval of ipiieA betw^un waH eonHequently 

ahaHdoned, and the, writer pro<(>eded to iill in the. wordit' ,, 

inl<mded to govern, namely, " the opening of navigation,'' 

without attending to the propriety, if not neeeHsity, of \ 

striking out the word hetwten ; the re8iH)udentB conse; i 

<iuently, in their declaration, adopted the reasonable dense 

of itH moaning " about tin; opeHing,'of the mmgatum,'' which 

interpretation was accepted Hy the apiiellants. There 

was therefore a time understood to be fixed and that was' 

about the opening of navigation, which opening of, naviga'* 

lion occurred on the first of May, 1879, a custoinary date ^ 

for that event. The vessel ijvas thereibre to make her way 

with all convenient speed frj^m her jwrt in England tot^the 

port of Montreal, but .to bft, there about the first of May- 

Ah Ihere was no excuse ^QX the exercise of convenient ' 

Npeefl from England to Montreal,, and abundance of time 

forlhe purpose, she ought to have been at the port of 

Montreal about the jirSt of-May" 187l>: and, as the'charter 

would indicate that other steameTs were chartered to , 

oNtablish something like a weekly liut^bout the first-^of 

May could not be reasonably* extendea"beyoiid the first^ 

.week in May, if it coHld,f(o.far^a»vthat. Nor is ther 

for the <^ontii}ution of the respondents, that the otnpi( Vi^ssels 

chartered by McShane may have arrived within n 

time to begin the weekly service. W« have not thenLfiJtflr. 

torn to establish whether a like time or any^ tiriie was fix("d 

for their arrival at Montreal, and it is to the charter of thrf*^ 

' Emblehope ' we htive to look torfix the obli^aticins of "the : 







■ » 
,1 



i 
9 




JM 




IV' 



^^ 




M 



..^ 



o 



/ 

N. 



*t 



IMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT.3) 




1.0 



I.I 



Hi , 



11.25 



1^ 

m 








■f -, 




// 





^/ 





,> 



^' 



♦i; * 



.^ 



*> 

.«,^ 



1 



^\<^ 



/- 



i:^-^ 



4 



^ 




' ^ 





*f '^ 



■..■*:. 



Sdeices 
mtion 




23 WEST MAIN STREET 
WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
J (7l6)«72-4503 






'^ 



■■«■ -A. 



m.- 









? 




;n^ 





^ 

%" 



6^ 






'^■. 







■\ 



•^ 



/rh«t<5r 



*. ** 1. 



^ 






*54, 



•< . 



0^': 












-o'3i>r«T» 




v: 



;■ J 



p I - ' 

f)ll (I 




"■p-T^Krift--t"**^" 



'-hhi 



268 



MOlJTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



f; It 



1884. 

MrShuno 

.V 
lioiiilerynn. 



. .If. \ 



i- •' 






t 

f I 



^ t' 



I**.,, 






m 






I i 



p- 



•parties jis regards the contention in this suit, and by thiil 
<harter the respondents bound themselves to have the 
vessel at the port of Montreal about the first of May, 1871). ' 
and the appellant was entitled to dei)end upon this vessel 
as th»! firs! of the series, or even to have her at the same 
time as the others, if the charters were similar to the 
present. 

Jt is proved that he had <qTi?o foi; her and that he em-' 
l)loyed other vessels to <rarry it. It is quite trut^he proof 
phewi that freights had falhm, and vessels were obtainable 
at loN^er rates, but although this may be a reason for the 
.■v.,eKercii^^( of a careful scrutiny to see that appellant doe.s 
not unfa^ly take advaiitagi' of this circumstance, it doe.s 
not affect the legal question jis to whuther the appellant 
had a right to resciiid the contrait for failure on the part 
of the shii> to keep the time agreed upon. . . 

The Superior Court 'were o(f opinion that the appellant 
had no right under the (-ircums^nces to throw up the 
charter, and that his recourse, if any, was to (daim, dam- 
ages for the delay. 

•On an examination of the authorities cited by the 
appellant, we find that in England where the subject has 
undergone careful investigation, although there is. some 
confusion in the opinions expressed in the different cases, 
the general result seems to be well given in ' Maclachlau 
on Shipping ', 3rd Edition, p. 262. He says : " Questions 
upon the <;onstruction of this instrument have frequently 
been raised on the assumption that of tw^o things recipro- 
cally stipulated in it to-be done, performance of th^^rone 
is dependent on performance of the other, in the nature 
of a condition precedent. But whether that is so, stands 
not on any formal arrangement of the Words, but on the 
reason and sense of the thing, as these are to be collected 
from the whole of the contract taken together. The rule 
was -well laid down by Lord Mansfield in Boone v. Ei/re, 
that where mutual covenants go to the whole of the con- 
sideration on both sides, they are mutual conditions, the' 
one precedent to the other ; but where the covenants go 
only to a part, there a remedy lies on the covenant to 



4 ..,«,! 




■> 










ill' 


hi 


*. 


•iTJ, 


,-r ■- ■- 


a .. 


■ * 




m 






^i^fMiik. 







COURT OF JICEENTS BENCH. 



269 



recover damages for the breach of it i but it is not a con- 
dition precedent. 

On this principle, ho conchide.s that a reprosentatiqn 
although containyd in the written instrument itself, and 
although false, is not such as tp break the contract, unless 
made fraudulently. A question, however, he says, may 
• arise as to whether a descmptive stat^mtjftt in tk written 
instrument is a mere representation, or whether it is a 
substantive part of the contract.! If the Court should 
come to the conclusion that such j^ statement by "wne party' 
wTtSlntended to be a substantive jpart of the contract and 
not a mere representation, the often disci^ssed question 
may, of course, be raised, whether this part of the contract 
is a conditioji precedent or only an independent agree- 
ment, a breach of which will not justify a repudiation of 
the contract, but only be a cause of aciiou for compensa- 
tion in damasres. 

In the construction of charter-parties, this question has 
often been raise<f with reference to stipulations that some 
future thing should be-do,ne or-shall happen, and has 
given rise to many nice distinctions. Thus a statement 
that a vessel is to sail or be ready to receive a cargo on or 
before a given day, has been held to be a condition, in 
Mipijort of which he cites Gfaholm v. Hatys, and several 
other «ases, while, he says, a stipulation that she shall sail 
with all convenient speed, or within a reasonable time 
has been held to be only an agreement, to support which 
lie also «ites a number of cases. 

And with regard to statements descriptive of the subject 
matter or ofj|giiaterial incident^ such a statement, if in- 
tc^ided to be asubstantive part of the contract, is regarded 
as a warranty, that is to say, a condition on the failure or 
non-performance of which the other party, may, if he be 
so mihded, i-epudiate the contract in toto and so be relieved 
from performing his part of it, provided it has not beeil 
partiallfcexec\ited in his favpT. If, indeed, he has received 
the whole or any substantialpart of the consideration for 
the promise on his part, the warranty loses'the character. 
ol a condition and becomes a warranty iu the narrow 



1884. 

MoHhiino 

k 
Ilundonion; 



A 



■■t\ 



-"i^l 



"^'m 



'a:;- 




210 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTB. 



18S4. 

MuKhano 

Jk 

lli'iKlomoii 






.(■' 



M I 




"„'1 






:'2 



■^ * ¥ 



*l 









■/-: 



Htl' 



sense of the word, namely, a stipulation by way of agree- 
ment for the breath of whirh a eompennation must be 
sought in damages. That the Court may be inJIuenced 
in the construction, not only by the language of the in- 
strumiuit, but also by the circumstances under which and 
the purposes for, which the <hiirter-party was entered 
into; so if it were shewn that the charter-party was made 
for a purpose such as, that unless the vessel began her 
voyage Irom the^port of loading with a cargo on board by 
a certain time, it v^us- manilct^t that the object of tho 
. charter-party would, in all probability, be frustrated ; the 
Court might properly be led by these circumstances to 
conclude that a statement as to the locality ol" the ship, 
coupled with the stipulation that she should sail with 
all convenient speed, was a warranty of her then locality. 
Again, at p. 372, where time is specified and both par- 
ties contract with regard to it, whether it be th«[^e.at 
which the vessel is to be ready to receive cargofo? the 
day of sailing or offrarrival outwards, or the day. of any 
< other event in the voyage, the Courts hold that it is in 
the nature of a condition precedent to the rights of the 
owner under the rest of the charter-party. And dting 
wiih approval the case^of G/aholm v. Hays, wliere-.the •. 
charter contained a stipulation that' the vessel was to sail 
from Englanion or before the 4th of February, and failed 
to comply with the stipulation, it was hdd to be a con-!/ 
dition precedent, and in reporting the opinion of Chiti/ 
Justice Tindal, he gives as part of the language used by 
him in this case, :" the performanfce of the stipul^on goes 
more to the very root of the whole consideration' of the 
contract." 

The subject is further dis(;us8ed by Maclachlan leading 
to the concession, that even where the simulation was to 
proceed with all convenient speed, it might be held to be 
a condition precedent, if it were evident that the object 
of the charter had been fj?ustrated by the failure of the 
vessel to do reasonable diligence, but it is clearly laid down 
<Kat where„ the charterer has accepted part performance 
he cannot afterwards repudiate the entire contract 



«1 



m i 




- ,' . 


>• 


*. 


"——<"•« -v •\^ 


^«4V« ui\y t;* 


$•' 


.'.*** 


' ■ 






\ 


•■ " * - ' ' ■ 


S ' 






■■^■ 


^ 


* . 


t" 












-■,->■ 


>• 1 




^. 










j,i^ 














ti 














f» 




» 










sr? 


















COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCR 



2ri 



A principlfa deducible from tho differenr Cases may be 
suloly assumed to go ho far as to hold that where the sti- 
pulation as to time is of the essence of the contract, it 
will be considered a rendition precedent, or a conditidu 
on the failure of performance of which by the ship, the 
(harterel- i^ entitled to repiidiate th(« whole contract, but 
if lie accepts parfperformanco of it, he cannot afterwards 
"n-pudiate the entirety of it, and must, if he have any grie- 
van(ui, « dniine himself to a demand in damages for* the 
di'layonly. This is perfectly (wisistent mth the priu- 
liples stated by Pothier, D^molombe, and our own Civil 
Code. The case of Tidty v. Howling, cited by the appel- 
lant from L. R. Q, B. Division, vol. 2, p. 1^2, very much 
resembles the present. Tho plaintiff agreed to charter a 
shipjor twelve mopths after the completion of her thfen 
present voyage. SKe was detained a^unseaworthy and the 
repairs were not finished until more than two Months 
after the completion of the voyage. It was held in Appeal 
allirming the decision of the Queen's Bench Division, that 
the plaintiff was entitled to throw up the charter pa 

. In the case of Dimech v. Corlett, 12 Moore's Prjry Co 

cil feports, p. ^99, the' Privy Council seemed to,be~of 
opinidu that ,the~ch»rterer ought to have provided for his 

^wn proteGtioft by a stipulation that unless the -ship 
sailed on a su^ified clsy, the charter was to be at ^ 
end. This does not seem to have been held imperative in 
all cases, nor to have»T^een adopted as an absolute general 
rule in that decision, and^learly has not been required in 

other cases. ' <^ ^/ ^' . ' '"'. . 

In the present case it was peculiarly important that 
the vessel should have kept her thne of* arrival at Mont- 
real. The live cattle which werfio compope her cargo 
'^Were a very expensive asset to hold over and exposed to 
serious deterioration, and the charterer had a strong interest 
in a prompt fulfilment by the vessel of the special under- 
taking in question, viz, to have the vessel at the port of 
Montreal about the opening of the navigation. We think 
that the ju^Hient of the Superior Court holding the char- 
terer liable for ^the freight is wrong, and we reverse that 
judgtfient and dismiss the action with costs. 



1884. 

MoShane 

A 
lIondurMOD. 



-1 




I 



''I 

.f'ii 

I*: 



'li" 

In 



< M 



:#? 



^... 



••m"' 's""?!" 



272 



* MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



MrShiino 
llfiiilennn, 






Ramsay, J. :— - ^ \ 

This is ail aition broujrhl by respondents against tho 
appellant on a charter-party by whi(;h respondents under- 
took to Kend their h.n. " Emblehopo " to arrive in Montnnil 
" btit ween opening of navigation 1879 " (probably between 
iho execution ol" the charter-party and the opening of th.' 
»a\Hgation 187!> is meant), and to form one of a nurnbcr 
■ of irteamships, not exceeding live, which the charterer iii- 
tendi'd to run in r«^gular rotation between Montreal and 
Ix)ndon up to\he Ist October, 1879. The "Emblehope" 
did n,ot sail from Engli\nd till the 2l8t May, and she did 

»rr<;not arrive in Montreal till the 5th June. The appellajit 
r'efuse^ JU) provide her with cargo, the owners' agent oh- 
tained cargo at a loss, and an action-,wa8 brought for .the 
dillerencc between the freight the steamship should have 
earned under the charter-party and what she did earn, 
namely, for i8!4,i;52.80. ' . 

The appellant contends that the charter-party was a 
time charter-party and not for a voyage, that she was to 

, be at disposal of the charterer on the opening- of the navi- 
gation, that this is a specific engagement, the legal effect 
ol»w:hich is to oblige the promiser to execute it, aud in 
cas^jf failure, allows the other, party to repudiate the con- 
tract altogether.^ 

. The respondents do not s<'em to combat this propo.si- 
tion in the abstra<;t, but they contend that a promise to 
arrive at the opening of the navigation is substantially 
complied with by an arrival on the oth of June, that the 
apiHillant did not repudiate the contract on this ground, 
but put forth a reason in answer to tht> demand of cargo 
which has been abandoned at the argument as untena])le, 
that the contract was not frustrated a^4 that the only 
object of defendant w^is to get out of his bargain. 

There is no contest as to facts, and it will therefore bo 
at once seen that the merits of the appea^l tuwi i^tirely on 
the question as to whether a charterer ct^jft^ repudfate his 
bargain, from a failure to keep to a speciified time, and 
whether a delay of a month and five days is within the 
latitude which evidently attaches to au uncertain date. 



tfjf^&^fi^'.J^ 






COURT OP QUEEira BENCH. 



278 



iinand of earjro 



The first thing we have to look at is the contract itself. 
In January, -the bwners specially declared that their vessel 
was seawbrthy, and they promised that their vessel should 
" with all convenient speed sail and proceed to Montreal, 
to arrive there between (thdt is between that time and 
tho) opening of navigation 1S19." The object of the 
(iharter-partywasNihat the vessel should " thereafter run 
regularly and with all despatch between Montreal and 
Loudon, to be despi^tched from Montreal in^ regular rota- 
tion with other steamers under charter to same charterer 
up to Ist October, 1879." " 

We have then a distinct undertaking' as to time of 
arrival and a comprehensible object for a substantial com- 
pliance with the stipulation. Is there such compliance, 
or has the plaintiff inexcusably violated his agreement ? 

The evidence seems to me to render the answers to 
these questions simple. The navigation opened on the 
24th April in 18t9. The first steamer arrived in Mont- 
real on the Ist of May, and sea-going vessels generally 
begin to arrive from the 1st to the 8th of May. The 
" Emblehope " did not sail from England till the 21st 
May and she did not arrive till the 6th June. It seems 
to me that this is a volifntary disregard of the contract 
whi(!h would give the charterej the right to repudiate 
the contract. This is according to the ordinary doctrine 
of the civil law, ap^d commercial law so far contains 
exception.^ '■■ ■ 

But it is said the excuse is trumped up ; you renounced 
the contract four months ago and you refused to carry out 
the contract on another ground. If this is a legal answer 
at all in the mouth of respondent it is as an acquiescence ; 
but it IS evidently an acquiescence in respondents' aban- 
doument of the whole contract, not in his fulfilling it 
inexactly. I am to reverse. . 



18M. 
MoShkoe 

T. 

Ilendenon. 



f»-» 






1 



L *i 



-1^' 



of J 



?. 



Vi I 



1]|PRI0N, O.J. :— 

I think this case must be governed by 2W/y v. Howling. 
I therefore concur in reversing the judgment appealed 



from. 



Vou L Q.B. 



18 



5'flll 

I, 



'il 










Tv 



«r 



1884. 

MoHhniio 

Ilendenun. 



I") 






'i ,. 



%l 



*s 



m 



A 



214 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



The judgment in appeal is as roUows :-^ 

" The Court, etc... 

" Considering that by the charter-party mentioned, and 
in part re<:itedi in the declaration filed by the resiwndontB 
in thiH caube, said charter-party bearing date in th<) month 
ofJauuary, 1819, the roHpondeuts, in effect, uudertoolcthut 
their steamship or vessel called the " lUmblehope " should, 
with all convenient speed, proceed to Montreal to arrive 
there about the time of the opening of navigation, to wit, 
about the 1st day of May, 1879, and there load from the 
factors of the appellant a full and complete cargo of live 
cattle, which the appellant was to furnish and to pay 
freighfi^for the carriage of the same, qit the rates specifiod 
in the sflid charter-party ; 

" And considering that the respondents failed to cause 
their said steamship or vessel called the "Emblehope " to 
proceed wi^ convenient speed or to arrive at the said 
port of Mont|fli|d on or about the said 1st day of May, 
18t9, and, in fact, failed to have the said steamship or 
vessel arrive at the said port of Montreal until the 5th 
day of June, 1879, and did not notify the appellant of such 
arrival npr demand cargo of him until the 6th of 'June, - 
1879, when the appellant refused to load the said steam- 
ship or vessel, or to be bound by the said charter-party, 
and claimed to rescind and void the same, as he had a 
right to do ; . 

" And considering that in ihe judgment rendered in 
this cause by the Superior Court at Montreal, on the Slst 
day of May, 1882, there is error, the Court doth reverse, 
etc., and doth dismiss the action of the respondents With 
costs." 

* - , Judgment reversed. 

Kerr Sf Carter, attorneys for appellant. 
Abbott, Tait Sf Abbotts, attorneys for respondentsT. 
(J.K.) 












nent reversed. 



/' 



COURT OF QUEENT3 BENCH. 276 

/ September 22, 1884. 

Ooram Monk, Ramhay, Tkssikb, Cross, Baby, JJ. 

WILLIAM P.'LIGHTHALL, 

(PlahUiff betow). 

Appellant; 



r 



AND 



GEORGE W. CRAIG, 

•^ (Mia en cause below). 

Respondent. ' 
CoHlract—Resmsion for fraud— Rights of innocent third party. 

Hkii) :— That the roHciaHion, on tiie ground of fraud, of a deed traiuferring 
real estate, will not alfoqt tlie right* of a third party who in good faith 
lina lent money on the property while in tho powosslon of the pur- 
.ehftser, whero the vendor, by hia own actor fault, haa to Bomeexte**, 
UMlnml the tliinl jwrty to mako the advance. So, where the plaintiff 
Hold t-ertain real eatuto to defendant (who then obtained an advance 
from C. on the aecurity of tho pro|)erty ), and in the dee»l from plaintiff 
to defendant, it woa declared that tho conaideration was (^aaii paid by 
thepurchaaer, whereas in fact tho consideration was mining stock 
which turned out to bo worthlosa. it was luld that the plaintiff was 
in fault in permitUng and' re«iuosting such miastatement as to tho 
conaideration to bo insertoil in tho deed, which miaatatemont might 
to some extent liAvo induced C. to advance money on the property ; 
imd therefore the plaintiff was entitled to obtain the retoissioa of the 
<lood for fraud, only m condxHoh of his reimburMg to C. the amount qf 

flp* advance. 



eYk^ 



The appeal was from a judgment of the Court of Review, 
Montreal, Slat January, 1883, (Papineau, JETrfi, Loran- 
OER, JJ.), reforming a judgment of the Superior Court, 
Montreal, 9th May, 1882, (Mathieu, J.). 

The appellant Ligl^all sold certain real estate to one 
Chretien, and the puce was paid in part with Silver Plume 
' Mining company^^k, but in the deed the price was 
represented to hi^e been paid in cash. Chr6tien trans- 
ferred the same property to George W. Craig, the respon- 
dent, by way of security for a%advance of |1600. The 
price of Silver Pluj^e stock, %|l>ilfedtaent methods, had 
been forced up to ^figure far exceeding its value, and the 
appellant, discovering that the shar^ were really worth- 



'm 



M: 









w ' 


F = 


,h: ♦! 




<-§,':' ' 


mm 1 



fS^y^^^^^'^'^'^J^'^^.WW^^*^ 



J:' 



L'l. 



IIM. 

Uahlhall 

Criil*. 



it^tE*- - 






«is>. 




216 



MONTREAL LAW REFOBTa 



loM, prottiflttHl the partioH, and ankod for the return of hJH 
proiMirty by the pri'iient at^tion. Mr. Justice Mathien,>iii 
the Superior Court, maintained the demand, Het aRide lli<> 
Rale to Chretien and the transfer to Cfaig, and (^ondemrnd 
Ghr6tien and Oraig to give the property back to the &pp«>|- 
lant. The cast^ waN then taken by (^raig to the Court of 
Itflriew. where the judgment was modified. The follow- 
ing waH the judgment in Review, from which the preMeiil 
apiHtal was instituted : — 

" La. Cour, aprds avoir entendu la plaidoirie iontradi«-- 
toire des avocats du domandeur ot du mis en cause sur'lo 
m6rite de la demande faite par co dernier, que le juge- 
ment de la Cour Sup^rioure de oo district, rendu le 9 de 
mai 1882 et annulant : 

" 1. L'a<te do vente par le demandeur an ddfendeur, en 
date du 21 juillct, 1880 et ; 

2. L'acte do cession par le dOfendeur au mis en cause 
en date du 20 septembre 1880, soit r6vis6, et que le dit 
jugement soit r6form6 quant h ce qui I'afFecte ; avoir pris 
connaissance des ^-rituresdes parties faites pour rinstruo 
tion de leur cause, des pieces produites et de la preuve et 
d6lib6r6 ; 

*' ConsidC'rant, que par le dit jugement du 9 de mai 
1882, la vente par le demandeur au ddfendeur, de Tim- 
meuble suivant, savoir : ' Un emplacement, etc' est declarvu 
nuUe et annul^e k toutes fins que de droit, et ce 4 raiKon 
du dol pratiqu6 par le d^fendeur et son agent pour faire 
' consentir le demandeur au dit acte ; 

" Gonsid^rant que le dit jugement annule en outre la 
cession faite ensuite du m6me immeuble par le d6fendeur 
au mis en cause le 20 septembre 1880, 6t ce comme conse- 
quence n^cessaire de I'annnlation du premier titre, le 
dSfendeur n'ayant pti transferer auf^^ en cause plus de 
droit au dit immeuble qu'il h'en avait lui-m^riie; 

" Consid6rant que si en principe la doctrine ainsi enon- 
cee au jugement maintenant soumis a la r^visioti de (iette 
Cour ne saurait Hre contestde, les circonstances ^tablies 
dans I'espece ne permettent pas cependant d'en faire 
TappUcation rigoiirerwe au mis en cause; 




j ^^ ^yt^ - ^sMrA^ 



COURT OP QURRN^ BRNCR. 



211 



au ddfendear, un 



" OotiHid^rant notammout qu'il mt on prnuvo qa'avant 
do vflndro k Chretien 1« doinaiiduur a 6t6 inrormd da fait 
(|ii« la compagiiio coiinuo hoUh le nom d« Silver Plume 
Mining Com/Minv nVftiiit pait iii<!<)r|)or6»» : qu« w n'6tait 
(|u'uii« asHocitttioii volpntairodocortaiima porHonn«H po8a6- 
(lant uno propri6t6 minidre, ot qui ho proixxtaiont do 
(l.inandor uiio chnrto d'inoorporation ; quo lo capital nomi- 
iiiil do cotto oompaj(uio avait 6t6 divi86 on actions ima^i- 
iittiTOH, on athmdunt <otto incrofiwration ot quo malgr6- Im 
<ot«8 avantugi!U808 dos ditos w;tionii ii la Imurso. il 6tait 
fort imprudent ot riHqu6 de I'airo aucuno oj[)6ration ayant 
|M)ur but racquisition doN ditos actions ; 

" Considfirant que malgrfe cos ronseignomonts lo doman- 
dcur a per8ist6 k vondro Timmoubk susdit, ot A rot-evoi? 
on pavement do la plus forto partiedu prii des actions do 
la dite compagnie ; 

" Consid^rant quo bien quo la coto la plus 6lov^ des 
dites actions n'out pas d^'passfi lo chiflre de 72J centins 
duns la piastre, le demandeur a consent! k a<?copter ces 
^tiona au pair, ot qu'au lion do declarer dans I'acto de 
"vente par lui consent! k Chr6tion que telle 6tait la consi- 
deration do la dite vente, le demandeur a sp6cialement 
requis le notairo de n'en faire aucune mention et de 
declarer au contraire que la somme ropr^sentfee par les 
dites actions Itti avait et6 pay6e 4 sa satisfaction ; 

" Considerant qu'en agissant ainsi le demandeur s'est 
rendu coupable de faute et a volontairement "-"♦HW ft 
induire en erreur les tiers de bonne foi, k qui rac<j|Mur 
Chr6tien pouvait ensuita s'adresser ; 

" Considerant que'ile fait Craig, ignorant les man<Buvre8 
frauduleuses employees k IVsncontre du demandeur, a 
ensuite avancd de bonne foi una somme de |1600 sur la 
garantie de I'immeuble ainsi vendu par le demandeur k 
Chrfetien, et que par ses defenses k Taction du demandeur 
il soutient entre autres choses, que les actes dont le deman- 
deur se plaint ne sauraient dans toiis les cas 6tre annulSs, 
sans que sed intdrdts an sujet de la garantie & lui assur^e 
Boiont sauvegard^s ; ^^ 

" " Vu Particle 1068 du Code Civil, cette Cour accueillant 






UablhaU 
VnMc 



•*!♦ 



% 


"1 


I 


jTI 


■i 






■ 




I; ■ 




i 




1 


•.i 


ii 




! 



00. 
m ; 






r 



nl 









ft '• 



■>u 



2t8 



MONTREAL i.AW KRWRm 



liM. 



■H>l 



It • 






% 



^^ 



L* ♦ 






./K. 



(.1 ' 



1« pourvoi «n r^vbion du dit Craig, ijour nutaiit, rAfonii.< 
lo (lit jugiunoni dii » df iiiai IHH'2, «<t Umt tm itiAintoimnt 
I'liiiiiiiliitioii pronoiK-^o piir i<»dui d« la vciit** <ni comhiuh 
du 20 Boptombn^ IHHO, par Chr^lioii ft (Jraix,. <l6«lar«j (|uc 
1« dit douiaiidour in* rMpn^idm ii^*iiiuiioiiiN4(< dil iramoul*!.' 
quit iji\j«l au pai<>in<>iit d<' la Moiiitno d«t #1500 duo A Cruig, 
Bur iirelui, inaiH HUl)Hidiair«Mnoiit «l apr^it J^>puiN«uti«'nt «lu 
nnourH jwMurA A Oraig Bur I'aiitro imm««uli«y alFwtA im 
poieminit do Ha diUnr^HiKo^ 

" Kt la Conr <!uiidamiio l«> d(>muiid«>iir aux IrttiM do r»'»vl- 
■ion, distraitN A inoiwiourH Luiiii ot Oaiap, ovo<witiidu viii 
OIL cause, chacuno doH ditoH partius dovaiit. payor hob Iriiin 
on Cour do proinidro instauoo. " . . 

Barnard, Q.p., for tho appellant. 

A. U. Lunn and G. B. Cramp, <^.C., for tho roBpondout. 

The judgmqut in appeal waa dolivorud by 
.Ramsay, J.: — 

Tfa^ appellant, ownor of certain real ostato, was induced 
by fraud to make it over to other persons, in exchange lor 
worthless stock. Tho deed botwoon apiMdIaht and those 
parties did not exactly disclose the reaitransactiou, for by 
the deed appellant gave tho jmrties acquiring tho prbperty 
a full receipt as if he had boon paid in money. Wlmn 
appellant found out how ho had bt^en proi^tised upon, he 
brought an action to rescind the deed. In tho meantime, 
however, tK^^urchoser had hypothecated the property 
for $1600, andytho hypothecary creditor, now respondent, 
^aspitt^iulo/the suit. He pleaded that appellant wiw 
s^ot defrauded, and ho added that ovon if he had been so,' 
hoXCraig, was not responsible for i^, and that his hypothec 
mun^e paid before Lighthqill could be allowed to take 
posses^n.* ' , 

In the Court of first instancu) the dec# was rescinded, 
as having been obtained by fraud from Lighthall, and the 
cont^tion of the mis en cause was set aside on the principle 
that what was null could prodttqe%o effect^ 

Craig took the ca^ to rovievi^', and there the Court 
reversed the judgment on the principle that Lighthall 



' J l^.S. ' T I >' ^ -lA!^a.t iylMJEjLXetfi^^-^W«ll^ -.-.^ J ii SW -. 



\ 



\ 



K'ltlViv H(roct^) au 



notmr of qirRRNw niwoH. 



879 



wrut in Aiull for ho had thrown th« mi$ Im oimm off his m. 
piinl by .d««Uring thnt h« hwl bm^i paid, and that if ^m^ 
thin had lM«m tru« Oraifif would'not hiiv« imir«rtHl. Oi*. 

Wo ar« all of opinion that th« dooiMion of 'th« Coftrt of 
Ri'viow imorroot, and that it inuiit h«» maintiuniwl ; but . , 

HO ftti'aa I am .ooncorned I tttnk tho judf<miMit in fnuMtnin- ' 
•bit) ui)on doopitr roationH than thoHo asiiignod by th« 
Court of Ilt)view. Tho drnwl butwmui apindlant and tho 
pnnhiwera ia Nwt aaido for a vmno of nulli^ in. tho con- 
fViM t (W){ 0. C). It i« not. Haid in. tho chmIo, andjndeod It • *. 
ban never beert pro,tondod in any nyHtom of hkw.'that coh- 
tracta jwri^re null by roaiion of error or fraud. They may - 
b«( annul UmI therefor, that ia all. (1000 0. 0.) They^a«o<!t * 
tho rosultH ofwnHont, thoy do not doHtroy it. Injuria- ' 
pnidonco this hoH never bo«Mi a dilfi<!ulty, although the 
two of Jhe Jvord " couiMmt " haa HomotjinoM made it appear 
4ittzy. The Germans have g'bt over this iiipouvenienco by 
a periphraae— the conaeut whi<!h is of the eHsence of a 
contra<!t ih termed " a declaration of will." Without a 
detlaraticyi of will there ia no consent, and therefore no 
(wntract. With it the contract is complete, and so long , 
as it 18 allowed to subsist, it is binding. It is a title to 
the ordinary prescription of ten years ^ nay more,, it has ' 
a special prescription t)f its own. (2268 CO.) AUhe argu- 
ment the learned cou©sel for the appeWaoli^aid tfeit if this 
be true, for_error or fraud, it must bo equally so for vio- 
lence and feat. This is |)erfectly true, but if it were 
admitted without a caution, it might very rea4iiy be so 
exaggerated as tg lead to the neglect of substantial distinc- 
tions. It would however be necessary to mal^e f| very^^ 
long digression to discuss this matter fully, and thel^oro ' 
I Nhall confine myself to ohe or two remarks! Art. 991 
C. (^ differs from art. 1109 C. N. in several particulars but 
speciaMy in the addition of theVord " feor." Now I do 
ftot attach any significance to this additiodi It was not .'^ 
intended to augment the extent of violence btit to prevent 
its too narrow interpretation. It intimates authorita-- 
lively that a menace enforced with'tli|.j)5pwer.to Execute 
it is violence, just on the same pnnciplenjbat a menace to ^ 

stril^e within the distance in which the threat can be 






- K 

\ 



\y 









^ ^ 



2^ 



"■^W* i ^r O^ ^ ■'Hh'-'a/l^i ■■ * -' »^ fi ' 









f! 



LiRhthall 

A 

Craig. 






^ 



^f;ii 






■Mil 



f 

"t 



**N* •«ll 



.-i 



t,V 



V' 



'i. 



m' 






.C-- 



280 



MONTREAL LAW REPOB^ 



executed is an assault. On the other hand it is possible 
to conceive act? of Anolence of such a character as to intro- 
duce other principles, such as for. instance when, a- strong 
man forced the hand of a weaker person to hold the pen 
tha;t signed the deed. There might not then be even a 
declaration of will, and consequently no contract. But as 
•cases of that sort, are not likely to arise, and if any such 
arose w6uld be easy of solution, it is n6t necessary to 
consider th^em ^ore at length. I agree therefore with 
couijjsel t^at within the meaniuj^ of arts. 991 and lOOft 
Q. C. the Tour causes of nullity therein mention^id staud 
= on the same footing. It was als^ argued that there was 
a period of ten years in which th/^ deed granted by error, 
&c., «ould be set asfde. Manifestly that is as against the 
other contracting party. It has no eft'ect on third parties. 

Judgment confirmed. 

Barnard, Beauduimp Sf Dducet, attorneys for appellant. 

Ijunn Sf Cramp, attorneys for respondent. 

(J-K.) ^ ■ 

January 21, 1885. 

(hram DoRioN,.C.J., Ramsay,:Tessieb, Cross, Baby, JJ. 

ROSS, 

(Defendant below,) 
\ Appellant; 

AND ■" ■ 

. , - . - v 

LANGLOIS, 
^ . [Plaintiff below,) 

. v^ :' Respondent. 

lHa^ef^and.servant-^—RespqnsUnliti/ of employer far accident 
resulting from defects in inachineryr— Negligence 
r vf%bofer:- f 

Held: — 1. An employer is responsible for injuries to his employees 
'^■^"lesnlting from defects in the tackle, machin^ery or appliances provided 
-"^^ fot.their use. -Tackle used, in work such as loading or unloading a j 

v!688^ ought to be atnpljr. sufBcient to withstand any strain that is 
- _; likely to be put bpon it by ordinary unskilled laborers ; and where - 
. i^jl^kle brei^s, without any Oxtraordinary strain upon it, it will 
. bs piesumed to^ insuffident, though it may have been used pre- 
viously foV the same pdrposO wiUiout accident 









\- 



/ 



.4P- 



.,%•}»; 



281 



* 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. 

2. A laborer engaged in woricsach aa kmtUng or unloa^ng a vesiel is 
only bound to UHe onliJwy care, and (jjie cimplftyiiffim^iiot relieved 
from reHponsibility by showing that If tlife ' lultorer hid nsed the 
gruattist skill and care the aiutident might not havo hapiwned. 

Appeal from judgment of the Superior Court, Montreal, 
March 24, 1883, (jETTf:, J.) fj? 

The action wfts to recover the sum of $200 damages for 
bodily injuries. While the plaintiff Langlois was assist- 
ing in unloading the steamer Poliuo of a, gftrgo of coal an 
iron hopk broke and the tub suspended %y it fell upon 
him. He claimed $80 for loss of time and doctor's bill, 
and #120 for his suiferiug and injuries, making $200 in all. 
The defence was that the hook was suflicj^ently strong 
for the purpose, ajid that the plaintiff had l^en carelesj^ 
That it was his duty to stand upon the platfor^i near tW^ 
top of the slide, and when the bucket came up filled with 
coal, to receive it and to empty the coal in the bucket into ^ 
the slide at tlie top, leaving the bucket free to descend ,. 
into the hold, and preventing it from sliding down the 
slide, but allowing the (!oal to slide down into t^je, carts. 
That' while the? plaintiff was thus engaged, iiu^^ of - 
causing the bucket of coal to be emptied at the toj^of the 
slide, |e negligently allowed it, when full of coals, to 
descend down- the slide to the lower end, and thus an 
unusual and extraordinary strain was put upon the appar- 
atus holding the end of the slide suspended, and the iron 
hook above refeSFed to broke, and the gaff fell, together 
with the tackle appertaining thereto, and struck the plat- 
form upon which the plaintiff was standing, breaking it 
and throwing him down on the deck. 

The court below (JET*r£, J.) was of opinion that the 
hook was insufficient for 'the weight, and condemned the 
defendant, who is the owner of the Polino, to pay the 
sum demanded. 

The following was the judgment appealed from : — . 

" IW Cotir, etc. . ' 

"CcttiSid6raht que le demandeur reclame du d^fendeur ' 
^1 sa quality de propri6taire du steamer '•Polino"de8 dotii--^ 
fes s'ilevant k deux cents piastres et resultant d'un 



1885. 



JUm . 
A 

Langlola. 




■s^ 









,,rf^^^#|- 






i 



m 




■^a ■ 






^ ^\' 






/■ 






I:-- 




U8S. 


■\ 


& 


r§:. 


\ 


• Lnngloii. 


f ■? 






" q- 










^ 


x>'is 




\ . 


f ■'■■•i 






i 4 






II4- ■ 







282 



MOimtEAL LAW RGPORT& 






•* 



accident fp-ave arriv6 au dit demandeur le 26 juin dernier 
(1882) dans le port de Montreal, pendant qu'il 6tait em- 
ploy6 au d6chargement du dit navite, le dit demandeur 
ayant alors et6, par suite de la rapture d'un crochet en 
fer soutenant, au moyen d'une barre en bois et d'un cable, 
une glissoire destinfie k conduire le charbon du port du 
dit navire aux voitures placfies sur le quais, frapp6 par la 
chute de la dite barre en bois et du dit crochet en fer, et 
ramass^ sur le pont sans <*ounais8auce et bles8§ gri6ve- 
meut, ce qui I'a retenu aii lit pendant plusieurs semaines, 
et lui a cau86 les diti^ dommagesi le demandeur all6guaut 
en ohtre que le dit accident est .arriv6 par la faute du 
defendeur et k raison de la mauvaise quajlit^ et condition 
des appareijs'du dit navire eiapldyes comme susdit k son 
d6chargement ; 

" Consid6rant que le dit d6fendeur Ross, plaide en sub- 
• stance k cette action que c'est par Itffaute et negligence du 
demandeur que I'accident en question est arriv6, attendu 
que le devoir du demandeur dans rex6cution de I'ou- 
vrage k lui confix 6tait de, prendre soin de ne verser le 
contenu de la cuve apportant le charbon de I'intferieur^du 
navire (\xCk une hauteur raisonnable de la glissoire sus- 
mentionn6e et que n^anmoins, lors de I'accident, le de- 
mandeur et son compagnon de trtivail avaient laissfe mon- 
ter la dite cuve de charbon k une hauteur beaucouf^ trop 
considerable, puis I'ont laisser retomber brusquement sur 
la glissoire, k I'extrfimitfi d'icelle soutenue par le cable et 
le crochet en question, et que c'est par suite du choc 
violent qui est r6sult6 de cette fausse manoeuvre que le 
crochet s'est rompu,mai8 nuUement parce qu'il 6tait de 
mauvaise qualitfi oti insuffisant, le dit crochet ayant, au 
contraire 8er\4 d6j5 depuis longtemps et rfesistfe k une 
charge et pression beaucoup plus forte que celle du 
I>6ids du dit charbon, si aucune brusque secousse n'y 
avait 6t§ ajout^e. Qu'en outre, en s'engageant pour gette 
ouvrage; le demandeur a pripjauy lui lesrisques inh6rents 
k tel emploi et que I'accideiiiqui lui est- aqriv6 n'est que 
le rfesultat de tels risques ; Qij^'en cons6quence te-46fen- 
deur n'est pas responsable des pommages r^clam^s ; \ 



"W^ 



') 



^^ 




OOITRT OF QUEEira BENCJft; iW^ 288 

" Considorant, qu'il rfisulte de la prenvl faite que le 
crochet en fer et qui servait a soutenir la glissoire sur 
laquelle se d6chargeait lo charbon lors de I'accident en 
question etait de mauvais^ quality, en mauvaise 6tat et 
insuffisant pour supporter sans dangior le poids du char- 
bon ainsi d6charg6 ; et que I'etat du dit crochet n'a pas 
et6 constats avant de I'employer a I'usage sus-dit ; 

" Considerant, que mdme en supposant que le deman- 
dour, en roecasion en question, aurait laisse tomber le 
charbon sur la glissoire de deux ou trois pieds plus haut 
que d'habitude, il n'y a pas lA; fai^te du demandeur pou- 
vant impliquer responsabilite, mais qu'au eontraire, il 
fetait du devoir du proprietaire du navire et de ses em- 
ployes eti charge d'ii^elui de prevoii^ une circonstance 
d'une occurrence aussi ordinaire et aussi frequente et d'y 
supplier par I'emploi d'appareils d'une fprce suffisante 
pour xrfisister au poids additionnel en resultant ; 

" Considerant que le demandeur ne pent 6tre cens6 
avoir pris sur lui les risques r6sultant des circonstances 
sus-mentionn6es, et que la responsabi|ite du dit accident 
rt^pose en consequence entiorement sur le defendeur ; 

" Considerant, quo le demandeur a etabli les dominages 
par lui soufferjls par suite de perte de temps et de travail 
et frais de mMecin k la somme de quatre-viugt pilustres 
et qu'il est, en 6utre en droit de r^cjlamer cette addition 
de cent-vingt piastres poui* les souffrances par lui endu- 
rees et le toft a lui cause ; ces deux sommes formant 
reuuis celle de deux cent piastres courant ; 

"Renvoie I'exception et defense du defendeur et le con- 
damne a payer au demandeur la dite somme de deux cent 
piastres.courant, avec interfet," etc. 

Tait, Q, C, for appellant. ". 

Geoffrion, Q. C, and O. Gaudet, for respondent. 



188& 

Rots 
A 

Laniloii. 



Il 

9 









Cross, J. (rfm.) :— 

This is an action of damages by the respondent Lan- 
glois, a labourer, for personal injury sustained by him in 
consequence of the giving way of the tackle employed for 



,^.-; - 



X, 




1886. 

Rom 

ic 

Lungloit. 



ff. 



' "I- 



284 



MONTREAL LAW REPOMB. 



the discharge of a cargo of coal from the steamer Polino 
in thQ Port of Montreal on the 26th of June, 1882. 

The action is directed against lioss as the proprietor of 
the Steamer, and against the brothers Brown, the stevtv 
dores, who had charge of the unloading of the vessel. 

It is alleged that the respondent was seriously injured 
by the fault and negligence of Ross and by the insuffi- 
ciency of the tackle furnished by him for unloading tho 
vessel, for which injury Langlois claimed and has been 
awarded $200. 

Itoss pleaded that the coal was discharged in the usual 
manner specially explained in the plea, and which will 
be noticed in referring to the proof; that the^ accident 
whetqby the respondent was injured resulted from his 
own carelessness and failure of duty ; that he had in fact 
taken the risk of the employment and himself been the 
author of the injury received. ..'' 

, . The respondent examined three witnesses, his father and 
two othe^ laborers who had all been emj^oyed by the 
stevedores in discharging the coal from the Steamer. 

The appellant on his part examined four witnesses. 

It appears by the' evidencie that the manner in which 
the coal was discharged was as follows :^^ 

A platform of a certain height was erected over the 
hatchway, a shoot or slide wa8 placed with the upper end 
resting on this platforiji, and the lower end extended over 
the side of the vessel down to a convenient height to 
allow coals passing through it to fall into cjEirts placed bo 
as to receive their loads from the shoot. The lower end 
so inclined over the ship's side to the wharf was support- 
ed by ropes or chains fastened to the end of a gaff running 
out from the main mast. This gaff was supported by a 
chain running from it to an iron hook attached to the 
-main mast. 

The coals were raised in a large tub, by tackle mnnlug 
through a pulley attaclud to the end of a boom extended 
from the mast and worked by a steam winch. This tackle 
was entirely unconnected with the chain, hook and gaff 
which supported the shoot. . , . : ' 



■i**-: 



-^i^^--i---^—^-^-r^;^^i^—^^-^ 



»t 



OOURlf OF QUEEira BENCEL 



285 



Two men were placed on the platfQrm to receive and 
empty the tub down the shoot when filled and raised by 
the winch of sufficient height to bo capsized into the 
shoot. These men commanded and controlled the action 
of the winchman as t6 the height to which the tub should 
be raised, the Jowering^'of it to accommodate it to the 
shoot, and to loosen the tension at the. time convenient to 
have the contents of the tub emptied into the shoot. 

The winchman was an employee of the ship, but the 
stagemen of whom the plaintiff (respondent) , was one, 
were employed by the stevedores. 

The accident in question occurred by the tub, contain- 
ing from, 800 to 1000 lbs. of coal, being allowed to be 
raised fron|» 2i to 8 feet over the shoot before the order 
was given by the stagemen to the winchman, to lower or 
let go the tackle, in place of a few inches which was suffi- 
cient, the consequence being that the tub with its weighty 
contents descended with great vel6city and force upon 
the upper end of the shoot. Something- had to yield ; the 
iron hook gave way ; the gaff and tackle fell upon the 
respondent on tko platform and caused the injury which 
he sustained. 

The respondent contends that the accident was occa- 
sioned by the insufficiency and bad material of the hook 
that broke ; the appellant, that it was from the careless- 
ness of the stagemen of whom the respondent was one. 

The respondent's witnesses, not specially qualified as 
judges of iron, swear that the hook was insufficient, that 
the iron where it broke was not all of one quality or color, 
but it is proved that the same hook had been for years 
used for the same purpose of sustaining the shoot, to 
unload the vessel, and also to sustain the sails, which 
was more arduous, and that it never would have brdcen 
by the ordinary usage when so unloading, nor if the 
weight of the tub with from 800 to 1000 lbs. of coals had 
not descended on it in the manner it did, which it is in 
fact reasonable to suppose from the previous experience 
of the vessel. The descent of this heavy weight operated 
like a trip hammer. It would have required extraordinary 



188S. 

Rom 
k 

LkDgloiS. 









•''ill 



=^ 



^•i mi 



.4, 



^.^»>.,- 'Tjr. 



286 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



188S. 

Rom 
A 

LiuikIaIr, 




tacklo tQ rusiHt mo impulse or momentum of such u 
weight, i|Uil readily aceovintii for the hook giving way. 
It iH said, however, thut the oth<;r stugcmau Wi^^iu 
person who gave the order, hut the respondent was 
undqubtedly present on the platform as a stageman and 
was responsible for the sulliriency of the orders. 

In the ovideiice of Ilya«iuthe Uarron, a witness pro- 
duced by the resp6|ideut, p. 21, 1. 2H of his appendix, Bar- 
ron says, speaking of the respondent :, - ' II gagnait a]peu 
pres viugt-deux ou viugt-trois ceht^^ I'heure ; il watts/ 
jrremier Stageman;" and at* p. 16, V 8*7: *' I^ tonneoti'a 
tombe au bout de la chuto et s'est renvers6 dan^ la, chute." 
P. 17, 1. 1, " Le ton^eau a frappe au bout de la chute." 

I think it is made quite\vident that the accident 
would not have happened hadhthe respondent as stage- 
man given the proper orders to Imyer the tub at suitable 
time, and not jet it fall with such ii^etus on the shoot. 

There has been a series of deoisionV as regards contri- 
butory negligence. I understand ihei« is no-difficulty 
about the legal principle, and there is no substantial 
difference between /tiie English and the French law in this 
respect. Although a*defendant may be guilty of\^egligence 
it does not exonerate a {plaintiff from the exercise of dili- 
gence on his part. If he is himself guilty of ne^gence 
without which tjie accident would not have Jiapp^ed, 
then he has no right to recover from a defendant altho^h 
the latter may/ have aiiso, beeln guilty of negligence. 

Baby,J.:— / „„.,J 



II s'agit iipi d^llhe db ces actions de dommages comme^ 
M^en vieijt bWicoup trop sou vent devant ce Tribunal. 

^s faits soiit biens simples. Le 26 juin 1882, Langlois 
6tait employe an d^chargemeut du steamer " Polino" alors 
datts le port de Montreal et l4 pTopri6t6 de I'appelant. Ce 
navire 6tait charg6 de charbon. Pendant que Langlois 
travaillait ainsi pour le compte de I'appelant, I'appareil 
,employ6 pour le dechargement cassa stibitement et, en 
tombant, alia frapper Langlois qui fut renversS sans con- 
naissance sur le pont du vaissean et bles86 grievement. 



-trr 



li 

TV 









. ■-', 



OpUBT OrQDEEira BENCa 



28'7 



Langlois a poarsoiyi en recoavrement de dommages- 
mt6r6t8 an montant de |2Q0 et le jugoment de la Oour 
8up6rieare les lui a' accord^s. 

Les ddfendeurs out reucontrC> cette action en all6gaant 
que Lauglois a 6t6 victime de sa propre faute ; que I'ac- 
cident n'est du qu'A la u6gligence du demand«ur-intim6 
dans I'exercise de son devoir ; de plus, qu'en s'enga- 
g»^ant pour I'ouvrage qu'il faieait au temps de I'accident, 
il a pris sur lui les risques inh^rents k cet omploi ; etque, 
8ur le tout, ils ne sont pa^ respousables. 

Vest une question de responsabilitfi quise prfisente ici. 
Langlois est-il censfi avoir pris sur lui ou accept6 les ris- 
ques en question, ou bien cette responsabiiitfi repose-t-elle 
entidrement sur I'appelant ? 

L'accident a 6t6 causfi par le fait qu'un crochet en fer 
qui servait k soutenir la glissoire, sur laquelle se d6char- 
geait le charbon, 6tant vieux, rouill6 et de mauvaise 
qualit6, s'est cass6 enti^rement. A qui incombait le 
devoir de s'assuror que l^s appareils employes pour led6^ 
chargement du [na^dre 6taient de force suffisante pour 
resister au poids et aia tension du charbon qui 6tait ainsi 
d6charg6 ? Au proprietaire, assurSment. 

Mais, dit-on,c'est lui, Langlois, qui aaugment§ la tension . 
sur le crochet en question, en laissant tomber le charbon 
8y la glissoire de 2 ou 3 pieds plus haut que d'habitude. 
C'est vrai, jusqu'd un certain point, mais si ce crochet 
avait m de bon fer et^ de force ordinaire, il aurait pu 
indubitablement resister k ce faible surcroit d6 tension. 
D'ailleurs, on devait prfevoir une telle occurrence et four- 
^nir a ses employes un appareil qui offirait les conditions 
^lues de suTet6. C'est la un des premiers devoirs du 
.v.maitre vis-a-vis de ses servitenrs. 

EnN^engageant, Langlois connaissait les risques r68ul- 
tant dtiNhravail annuel il se soumettait, mais non pas de 
ceux prot^nant de I'insuffisance de I'appareil qu'on lui 
foumissait ^nr s'acquitter de son ouvrage. L'excuse que 
ce crochet avi^t d6j4 servi plusieurs fois pour les m^mes 
I #ns ne pent guVe exo^ferer I'appelant, au contraire c'6tait 
la ftne raison de ^s ^nr obUger Tuppelant, s'il ne'vou- 



r 




1«8S. 

Komi 

Lutlolf. 



J 



! 



I 

•if 
" It 

t 
II 



^1 



"U 



& 



. ■«• 



^ 



If ! 



^il. 








litDgloll. 



■^•. 






\ 






■^ 



I 



li 



\t5 



t 



''*i' 



288 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTR 



lait pa« 6tro iax6 de negligence, d'oxaminor soignouHf- 
mont ce crochet ayaut do iwrmettro A seH employes do 
s'on servir et de s'assurer qu'il 6tait on bon fetat. JBn n« 
faisant pas rot exumen, il a laiss^ bob employes so servir 
d'un objet vieux, rouillC* et en mauvais 6tat et par consiV 
quent, pas du tout i)ropre A I'usage auquel on, remployuit, 
et qui, en se cassunt, a determine Taccident dont LangloiN 
a et6 la malheureuso victime. 

Quoiqu'on en uit dit, I'appolant n'a- pas agi comme on 
I'a fait dans la cause Gauthior, en mettant le demandeur 
sur ses gardes on lui I'aisant delense de sS servir do co 
croi^het. Non, bion au contfaire, il est celui qui a fonrni k 
Lauglois I'objet cause de I'accident. IjOS deux causes nu 
sont doni; pas semblables, tel qu'on Ta aiiirmo. 

8ou8 ces circonstances, At-il possible de dire que Lau- 
glois est responsable do oe qjui lui est arriv6 ? Non. Nous 
no voyons done pasquelaresponsabilitepuissereposersur 
d'autres C'paules que sur cellos do rappelant,et cette mani^ro 
de voir etattt cello qui a fait rendro le jugeinentvoii [irejniere 
ii^stance, nous n'avons qu'a le conlirmur uvec digpceii^. 



'V-- 



Ramsay, 3.:— _ t _" ' ■ 

This is an action of damages for injury doidie to a lab- 
ourer on board the ship "Polino," who was Hissisting to, 
unload her cargo of coal. The duty of plaintiff was to 
stand on a platform raised above the dock, and when the 
bucket of coal came to a proper level, to push it out over 
the slide, where it was tilted at the word "let go," and 
the coal was thus rolled down to the carts below. While 
performing this duty, a hook broke, the tackle fell and 
struck the plaintiff, throwing him down^ and doing him 
considerable injury. By his action, he asked for and , 
recovered $200. The defendant appeals and says there 
was no evidence of negligeifce on hi% part, that the tackle 
, was all in good order, that the plaintiff, on the contrary, 
was negligent in haTing let the bucket be upset when it 
'was several feet above the slide. That by doing this, a 
greater strain was thrown on this hook, and in conse- 
quence of this it broke. 



4.- 

is* 



•.■R^.-r 



COURT OF QUEENS BENCH. 



289 



There it no spooial ovidenne to show the (condition of 
this hook immediately before the accident, and the fact ia 
it broke while being used about the work for which it 
was provided. Again. I quite agree with the learned 
judge m the (»urt bolow that to he sulRcient for its pur- 
pose, the hook ought to have been amply sufRciont to 
stand any strain that was likely to be put upon it by 
ordinary unskilled labourers. In other words, the owner 
(amiot clear himself of responsibility, by saying that if 
the labourer at a gross work of that kind had used the 
most perfect care, the ac(;ident. might not have happened. 
Th*^ labourer, as the owner, is not bound to use the 
i?r.'ate8t skill and care, but only ordinary skill and care. I 
thmk there is nothing to show that the plaintiff acted so 
as to make himself responsible for the accident, and the 
msponsibility naturally falls on the owner. The latter 
is as liable for the injury done to the plainiiff as he is for 
the breakage of the hook. The question of responsibility 
of the employer presents no special difficulty under our 
law, for, luckily for us, the bad precedent under English 
jurisprudence (') which seems to have been at the root of 
aU the difficulties in England, has not force of law here. 
Wo have therefore only tp consider the application of 
ordinary propositions of law under the evidence. It would 
be tedious and perhaps difficult to provide specially for 
the (^asesj^at least it was found to be so, when in 1880 it 
w&HdeQJmi expedient to draw " The Employers' Liabi- 
iity Aet ;" but each case as it occurs presents little diffi- 
culty. There was the case of Periam Sf Dompierre, (') 
which illustrates the principle ot fault on the part of 
the sufferer from his stationing himself in a place he knew 
to be a place of danger. We haye had also the case of 
Desroches et al. 8c Gauthier, (') where the evidence showed 
that the sufferer had acted with wilful negligence. 
And the last case was where a man was drowned 

(') /Vieitfy V. .Fbwfer, 3 M. & W., p. 1. 

C) 1 Legal News, 5. 

C) 5 Legal News, 404. 

(') Tm Qmyaagnw du Richelieu rf Ontario &• St. Jean, M. L R.. 1 O. B. 2R2. 



1«M. 

k 



,3» 



^VOt. L Q.ir 



19 



-j- 







290 



MONTREAL LAW REFORm 



IMS. 



Km« 



i I 



II' 



fft •^'^:^ 



•^■« 



l;;-.s^^'3>; 



'■ . v^ 



owing to tho ordinary rivkH of a seaman'H life. Tho prin- 

C.ipU ou whi<^h the last case waa decided in appeal wiw 

Hcan^ely questiontKl ; but it was contended that the man- 

ter of the veaael front which the deceased fell into tho 

water had not used every possibht t^Jfort to save him. 

Wo thought that the onus /trohantii of negligence on this 

issue was on the piaintitf, and that thu evidence wan 

insufllit^iont. I am to confirm. 

Judgment confirmed. 

AhhoH, Tail JIf Abbotts, Attorneys for Apixjllant. 

O. Oawlet, Attorney for RoHpondc^nt. " 

March 21, 188:). 

Co^am DoRioN, (V., Monk, Ramsay, Oros«, Baby, XT. 

THE St. LAWRENCE SUGAR REFINING COMPANY, 
, {Defendant below), 

' . Appellant; 

AND 



CAMPBELL, 



(Plaintiff below), 

Respondent. 



Master and servant — Responsibility of employer — Negligence, of 
' servant — Irt/ury to fellow-servant — C.C. 1058, 1054. 

An enHpIoyer ia liable for any want of rare on I'lis part by which liis 
Hervunt iH injured ; and, therefore, if h« unKaKes an unsliille^ oraaire- 
loss person to conduct hia work, and owing to tlio want oV skill or 
care of the person so employed, another workman is injured, the 
employer is losiKinsiblo. Biit in order to hold the employer resftoii' 
sible, it must be clearly established that the hegli^n<» or wont 
of skill of the fellow workman causo<l the a(!tMent by which tin 
damage was occasioned. So, where two workmen were engaged in 
an operation not sliown to l)o hauurdous, and an 'explosion occumxl 
* which killed tlie superior workman j(pid injured the plaintiff w^d was 
assisting the other, it was Md iVat the workman injured had no 
right of compensation from the employer, in 'the absence of any exi- 
denco as to the^auao of the^cident, or that |he employer was in 
fault by tlaving hired a careless or unskilful wforkman. 
The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, 
Montreal/ (Mathieu, J.), mainiaining tike action of the 



dtni^ 




-responi 



■ 't^'V^ T^ '' 



. 'f^5^l!E^^*J^iJ.'*^ 



'i'i' 



CX)URT OP QUBKN'8 BRNCH. 



291 



Tho ca«o aroBo out of an iwwident which oc<mm«d in tho '""^ 
HUgar r«fin«ry of apjHiUant in 1H81. Campbell, tho rosnon- „, Jh, 
dont, a lalwrinff man, wan employed in the reiinory, and |ur!l""Vc« 
oil the 2ard of Jane waH inHtru<5ted by Blondin, the chief ohm'jH.ii. 
\narineer, to asiiiRt one Parisieau, a raachiniiit, in 'bendiniy g 

iHnper pipeo. fn this pro<reM the pijM^a are HlhHi with 

ited rosin Hotbre being b«Snt, and afterwards the rosin, 
whi^ hagrooledand Holidified, is removed by holding 
tho p\p« over the fire and allowing it to molt out. On the 
(liiy in question, while mejtjng the rosin. out of a b«Mit 
pipe, an explosion took pla«h\ which «;aused tho death of 
I'lirizoau, and Campbell was seriously injunid. He sued 
lor damages, and the court below allowed him i|lOO. The 
principal reasons assigned in the Judgment wore as 
■Mlovrb : — * ^ 

" Attendu que I'accidont parait avoir U6 causfi, soit 
puree qu'un bouchon ou cheville qui fonnait I'un des 
bouts du tuyau n'aurait pas 6t6 enlev6 lorsqu'on a fait 
chauffer le tuyau pour en faire sortir la rfisino qui s'y 

troav^iit, ou parco quo lo dit tuyau n'aurait pas St6 chauHe 
(1 abord ^ son extr^-mltt et que la chaUmr plus intense H \ 
riutfirieur aurait occasionnfe I'explosion ; 

" Attendu qu'il rfesulte de Ja preuvo que cet ouvrago 
nVtait pas un ouvrage dftngereux par lui-m6me, mais ne 
VdiMt que si ceux qui le faisaient ne prenaient pas les 
precautions qu-ils devaient prendre ; „ 

" Attendu que cet ouvrage 6tait confi6 sp6cialement au 
m^caflicien Parizeau ; que ce dernier 6tait un m6canicieu 
l^abile et parfaitement en 6tat de faire cet ouvrage et que, 
si'oet accident a en lieu, 11 appert que c'est uniquement 
par 1^ negligence du dit Parizeau qui n'aurait pas pris les' 
pr^^o&utions youlues pour pr6venir cet accident ; 

" Con^d6rant que la dite dfefenderesse est responsable 
des domibn^es cau86s par la faute de son employ6, m6me 
vis-a-vis de son co-flmploy6. surtout dans la position ou se ^:. 
^rouvaient Parizeau et le demandeur, ledit Parizeau 6tant 

un m6camcien habile et seul charg6 de la conduite de cet 
ouvrage, etle demandeur n'6tant charge que de I'aider 
comine simple journ iliftr ; 



r- 



-H*. 



** 



m, 






4 

m 



1 



^ 




MBrrRKAl. LAW REf^firri 




I«wr«n(K> 
K«Kiilii( Co. 
CinH|>lMll. 



fll 



V 


■ 1 . 




; r 






\ 


,;i c:5,s- 




' 








1% 

^ 1 

1 I 

,' 1 




■ 






1 = 


^ 


1 



»; 



4 



" Attfefldu quo la dltt dfer«nd«r«B«o pr(»tond d»nii mod 
pfpaii*^!' plaidoyor (juw 1« dit iMMJdowt a AfA •auiif! jmr la 
(i\\k\^ ^i^ i4i rt^Ugf uc« urroiNiom du #* domaiideur et do 
mtii <'o-«^mpi<yf 6, «t qtt« lt> d«Mn»nd»>ur ue »'«i»t {Mm conform/^' 
luu inKtractionM qui Ini Ataiont donn^iM ; 

" CoiiMidt'Tant <|a<»n»nioyim iiivoqW* pnr la dito d6fflnd«>- 
roHH«> OMt mal foiulf^ on fiiit I't on tlroit ; on fait, 1»» d«man- 
dtmr n'fitait pria j^hargA d« la conduito d«<rouvrapft\ o'Atait 
«J'iiri/.«'au qui on avuit la «onduito ct la Hurvoillanro, ^itaiit 
un mfjoanirien habilo ot lo dotnaiidtmr f^tant un Miniplc 
journalior, ot ll n'ont jian prowv6 qti'il y ait on Fauto do U 
part du <lit domandour ; on droit, la ilolondoroHno oHt ron- 
pouHahlo du doininago (muH^i «\ uii do Ros oniployfw par la 
nfigligohco <l« son oo-employ6 ; " etc. 



Sfii*«/-Wprr«, Q.C., for tho appollant: — 
Tho appollant Huhmits tho following propositionB : (1). 
AsHuming that OampboU had ))0on (JJ^gagod aH a mor« 
labouror oriffinally, it ib in evidoivdjjfi^hat holping th« 
maohiniHt at bonding' pipoH wasWnn of ^his occupations. 
(2). It iH eHtablishod in ovid«»n«o aiid a(;knowledgod by the 
judgnnmt that bonding of pipoH in tho raannor doRcribod 
above is an oporatioti otrering no dilfioulty and no danger 
whatever. (8). It is admitted by all that Parizeau was a 
very ; skilful machinist and a (cautious and prudent mart. 
(4). l^p^proved that Campbell, when ordered to go and 
help rerizoau, offered no objection buf, on the contrary, 
went willingly. (/>). Th«^re is no evidence that the order^ 
thus given to Campbell to go and^elp Parizeau wt 
-.jgiven by a person haying the j)rop«r authority to gii 
such an order, and there is no evidence that such an or« 
was'glven \o the knowledge of the company appellant or 
"■ * "' ' representative. (0). There i(j no ptbof of the 
<the. ai^cident. It might have been caused 
itten and Blondin, and it might 
le presence of explosive matters in 
j,_^0U8 sxiU^ipfiGB or even air or water- 
po proof onlnvni 



of'its I 
actual 
as s 

have bee 
the rosin, 
Therefore 
Parizeau-- 




»ny neglect on the part of 






;?- 



i& I 



f 






1' 



J' 



'i 



^ 







sf? 



■ifsr 



r. 




/■ 



OOlfET or qilKENU BKMOH. ' 

,'"• "" '^ ■■ • 

-/i. <i9| Jfr<MM«Mi, for rMpondnnt :— 

l'tiri/«an wun a Nkillml iniK hiitiiit; tht» ronpomlmit whh hi. lmV. 
II .ommoii Ittlwun^r, OKlortHl wiMH^ijillyoii tl»«. cxioiwion to H.m'oo. 
ni.M«t I»ttri».iin. The latter wm in (harffi. of th« op»^ration, o^iuii. 
»ud it wan through hid ||»j«^g«,iuu» that th« ai^cidunt 
orurriul llmlor (!. OjijidR^tlw omployor in r.'Hpou«ibl« 
for thti fault aiul "eii|r^^' «iip m^rvant. " 

II «'«W«<^<-iJmptainagft|.int6r«tii r6clftm6ii «t obtonug _ 
en C<)ur Sui^lrliff^o pur I^ nomm^! (^ampboll.' (Jftlui-ci. I« 
2Ujuiu 1881, 6tait daiw* l'«inploi <ln I'apptilanto <oiniiu«_ 
ioijmali«r, hoii occupati*^ ordiiiairt) 6t*»nt^ dWiwtor 1«)8 
Sh«H!anici«ii8 danii leur ojjvrigu. I^ jottjr ^ii qu««tioii, il 
aidttit, coinnnj d'aillours it I'avait fait Bouvwht aqparavant, 
Ic iiDmm6 rafizeau, un homme nMOiinu comnn} fort habilo 
mcianicuon, A courbo? duH tub«H ou cylindrd|yb cuivnr 
dont on m Bort dans cette j^aiineriu de suoro. ^^ 

\m proc6d6 auquol on a rtHtours pour arrlver in. courbiir ^ ° 

res «ylindre8 I'Ht fort Himple : on iermtf ara- un bourhon 
cu Iwia un des bouts du cylindro, "lequol est alorw rompli '" . 
di* rfesine en fibullition, wt eotto substance, en se rofroi- (% 
di»«ant, forme un tout ave<! le m6tal. Alors lo tube est V 
courb6 do la raanidre voulue. Oeci fait, on d6bouche lo 
cylindre et oette partio 6tant plac6e au-dessns du feu, la 
rfaino fond ot 8'6<oij3l>'gradu«llem«nt. 

Dans le oas actuel, le tube n'avait* point 6t6 courb6 et - ] 

»ou Mitr6mit6 6tait tout bonnemeut tenue au-dessus d'un r 
lumfi da ns Itb coi^jlp la fabrique pour en faire sortir 
^~^P*|ii^» coinme on le volt, d'une grande sim- 
Tout-A-coup, ce tube fait explosion, Parizean est 

ttto sur le coup et Campbell est atteint par la r^sine liquido 
qui lui brAle la figure et les main« On transporto ce der- 
nier u I'hdpital ou il demeure quelque tamps et, le 16 ao&t 
suivant, se sentant suffisamment gu6ri, il vient reprendro 
Mn emploi au service de I'appelanlse, y &meure jus- 

qu'au 19 mail882, c'est-A-dire, plus de neuf moi8.et liuia 
qmtte le service et porte son action— la compagnie lui 
*yant pay6 son salaire comme d'prdinaire tout le temna da 



"*»!•' 
^ 



leTa fabtiqueT^ 






•« 



■ fi' I 



i 



r*t 



'f 



*' 



\-:^y\-^ 






h.>'l 



m 



■MONl^j^AL ]UkW^0£k)]^ 



Vl 



^ 18M.- 

The . 
St. Lawronoo 

■^ noflniiiK Co. 

"if'- A 
Cami«b«ll. 



,/—'■— ^■. 






'V 






-t' 
•ii-,-. 



' La qnss^on^ ^ni se pc^sente' i<si; est ^de savoir si la com- 
pagiiie qtii a fetfc^oondamnoe k |)ayer^ €ampbellde8 dom- 
mages-int^rdis peut 6tre tedui^ responsable de ce qui est 
arriv6 tii son servtteur. Pour cela, il faut constituer I'appe- 
laute en faute 6videtnmeut. > . 

Lps theories raises de I'avant par les parties comme 
causes de I'explosion sont diverses, mais rien ned6montro 
que la compagnie n'ait pas fait ce qu'elle 6tait tenue de 
i'aire et se soit reudue coupable de negligence dans Tespeie, 
soit en ne preuant point les precautions requises pour 
parer, humaiuement parlant, k cetto explosion, soit en fai- 

' sont ou laissant faire I'op^ration dont il s'agit dans des 
(■ondi|ions propres a mettre en danger ceux qui en 6taient 
charges par elle, 4uomme nous I'avons dit, cette operation 
etait de la plus grande simplicite et u'offrait en soi aucnn 
darfger. Un tube de ciiivre' rempli d'une substance tout- 
ii-liiit auodine est place au-dessus du feu qui faft fondre 
cette* substance peu a peu, et Campbell voit k ce que le 
tube soit chauffe de maniere a obtenir le r6sultj|(t demande. 
Sous de telles circonstances, e^t-il possible de faire pesor 
Id. responsabilite de Taccid^nt sur la compagnie, plus 
qu'on le ferait, si Campbell, malencontreusement s'etait 
verse le conteliu brulant du tube sur les^ pieds ou sur les 
mains ? Non, 6videmment. D'ajlleurs, en un mot, il n'y a 
^^fcUner" J)reuve quelconque au dossier de negligence 
do la part de la compagnie ou de Parizeau, celui propose 

' a la surveillance de I'operation en question, telle qu'bn la 
♦►rouvait etablie in Ross Sf Langlois, (') une cause jugeQ 
par cette Cour, il y a peu de temps, et on ue saurait la 

Vpresumer. Cette cour ne croit done poisH; qu'il est pos- 
sible ici de condamner la comp^nie a payer au demau- 
detir-intime Langlois, des dommages-interSts. Le juge- 
me^t est done infirm6 avec depens. 

Ramsay, J. : — 

I eonciir in the judgment that has just been rendered. 

. Cases of I difficulty will always arise on the question of 

responsibility where there are accidents of^his^^nd. Our 

law fortunately is unembarrassed by any ' artificial juris- 

^) -into, p. 28a - > 



B-ri 



J.,-* 



^^Aaj ^ -fc:.. ■■^yTj^^.'j.-'-j^r^T-a'C-T 



4 



COUBT OF QUEEN19 BENCH. 



295 



C«mpb«U. 



prudence disturbing general principles. An employer is —■ 
liable for any want of care on his part by wbicK^is ser- „ tJ>« 
vaut is injured ; and so, if he engages kn tinskilled person l^Z 
to conduct his work, and owing to the want of skill of " "' 
the person so employed, another workman is injured, the 
employer is responsible, precisely for the same reason he 
is responsible for defective machinery, or any other cause 
of disaster. So far as I know, the jurisprudence here has not 
varied on this point. It does not follow that all our judg- 
ments^ are good, but the governing principle has never 
been lost sight of. " In the particular case before us, two 
• meh were sent td perform a simple operation which both 
understood perfectly. They proceeded negligently and 
an explosion took place, by which one was killed and the 
other (the respondent) was injured. There is no evidence 
to show whether both were in fault, or whether the one to 
blame was the deceased or the respondent ; therefore there 
is nothing to fix responsibility on the employer. 

This case, in my opinion, adinits of no difficult^ ! %here 
is no responsibility unless there is fault, and fault must 
be proved. Here two men were engaged in some work 
for the company. There is no proo^ that there was any 
great danger in what they were doing. But an explosion 
occurred, by which the plaintiff was injured and the other 
workman^lled. There is not a single witness who states 
how the accident occurred, nor is] there anything to show 
that the company was in fault or that the other workman 
wds in fault. It c^iinot be presumed that the accident 
occurred through their fault. The respondent's action, 
therefore, must fail in the absence of any evidence ad- 
duced by him to support it. 

, The following is the judgmeni :— ' ' 
"UCour, etc. / * 

" Con8id6rant qu'il n'est pas i)Touve que les dommages 

soufferts par l'intim6, et dont il se plaint dans sa dfclara- 

tion, soient arrivfe par le fait ou la faute de la compagnie 

appelante; / 






■i.i 



.:| 


1 


vl 


1 


1 


1 


''j 


|] 


4 


1 



i, 



?T^ ^T.-^« ^^ 



""Sf* - V^fjpij 



4f j^n i^rjj^^<r;*'*^if^ 



!i:rr 



j » 



11! >' 



I' ' 



ft- •^s^^:^ 




ft"'! 



.V 



296 



MONTREAL LAW BEP0BT8. 



1885. 



" Et considSraut qu'il y a errour dans le ju^ment rendu 
St. lawrenco P*'^ ^"' Cour de premiere instance ; savoir : le jugement de 
lUfl^niSi'co. la Cour Sup6rieure siegeant a Montreal le 81 juin 1883 ; 
Campbell. " Cette Cour casse et annule le dit jugement," etc. 

Judgment reversed. 
Saint-Pierre Sc Bussieres, uttonieyi^or appellant. 
Girouard ^ McGibbon, attorneys wt r(^spondent. 

(JK.). 

r ■ ■ ■-. 



~^' 



9 d6cembre 1884. 

Cmam Sir A. A. DomoN, J. C, MbNK, Bamsay, Tessier 

et Baby, JJ. 

LA COMPAGNIE DU CHEMIN DE PEAGE DE LA 
POINTE-CLAIRE, 

{Defenderesse en Cour inf&rieure), 
Appelante ; 

, -:' 'ET 

LOUIS LECLEUC, 

(Demandeur en Cuur inferieure), 
. Intime. 

Municijmliles de villages — Munieipaliles loi-ales — Code Muni- 
' cipal, art. 19^^§ 3, ei art. 2*1 — Peage—^Empierrement des 
.chemins—SB Vict., c. 32—36 Vict., c. 26, s. 4. 

'Jt;«K:-^lo. Qu'aux termea du Cotlo Municipal (34 Viet, c. 68, art. I'J, 
So) Ics " muuicipalit^s locales^' comprenneut les municipalit^B de 
villages. 

2o. Que Particle 27 du mOme code iie fait (iu'indiquor guelles municipii- 
liti-s rurales seront conBid^r^s comme municipalit^H locales, saiiH 
^gard uux municipal|t^s de villages, (jni tombent sous la r^le gent- 
rale ^tablie par I'art 19, § 3. 

3o. Que par oons^uent une compagnie ddment incorporee en vertu de 
I'acte 33 Vict, c 32, avait te droit d'empierrer uu chemin de front 
dang les limites d'une municipality de village, d'y poser des barri^res 
et d'y percevoir des phages. 









'rt- 



OOUBT OF QUEBSN'8 BENCH. 



m 



!]AOE DE LA 



Claire 

•t 
Loolerc. 



4a Qn'en vertn du dit acte, une telle compagiiie a lo droit .I'exiger un 18M. 
p^ago pour une fraction de inillo parcm.ruo, pourvu que sur toiito la ucioduCh. 
longueur du chemin parcouni le taux n'oxcL^do pas le montant i>ar njin.loWw 
mille flx6 par la c^ulo B du dit Btatut • aataPomto 

L'intime, demandeur eu Cour inftrieure, a poursuivi 
la compagnie appelante pour le reeouvrement d'une somme 
de 88 centins, que la compagnie aurait exig6 illegalement 
ititrede p6age dans les limites de la municipalite du 
Tillage de la Pointe-CIaire. L'action, d'abord intentee 
en Cour de Circuit, a ete evoqu6e k la Cour Sup6rieure h 
la demande de I'appelante. 

Le 14 no7embT| 1883, la Cour Sup6rieura, presid^e par 
I'hon. juge M^^pi a rendu jugement maintenaat I'ac- t ' ' 

tion du deni^i|{ej|||'.' / 

Les faits^'l^cause et les pretentions des parties sont 
sumsammeut exposes dans I'opinion suivante, et dans le i 

jugement Ibrmel de la Cour d'a^pel. i i»^i 

* Ramsay, J.:— < - V / .,11 

This appeal gives rise to two questions: First, whether 
th.! appellant has a right to interfere with the road passing 
through the incorporated village of Pointe-CIaire at all. 
Setbnd, whether it has exerci|ed its right properly or 
not. The argument on the first point is to this effect- 
that the village of Pointe-CIaire, being a village munici- 
pality, no such right could be intended to apply to it be- 
cause it has the control of its owikroads, and is not a local i 
municipality ; and that the act of \8*70 (33 Vic, c 32) on/ 
which appellant's title is founded, does not authorize 'the 
construction of macadamised roads by independent com- 
panies in town or village municipalities. The first statute 
m order of date, as well as in logical sequence, is cap. 85 
t.bts.C., the purport of which is to Vest the right to 
use all roads, streets and public highways in any city or 
incorporated town in the then province of Canada in the 
municipal corporation of such city or incorporated 4own 
Ihe corporation was further made liable to maintain 
such roads, streets and highways, and it might be crimi- 
nally prpceeded against for its neglect so to do. It is peiw 



■■..if 



If 




298 




MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



du In Puintt' 
Cliiiru 

ot 
LoelOru. 



k 






w 



t 



fp if 



UM. lectly evident that this act can have no influence on the 
'Sid'AST decision of this case, for Point dlaire is not a city or incor- 
porated town, but an inr!orporated village, and doei^ not by 
lecessary intendijient fall within the rule applicable io 
cities and towns, unless it can be shown that incor- 
lorated villages are assimilated in all respects to cities and 
/incorporated towns by other laws. This is affirmed by 
respondent in his factuni, but the laws assimilating arc 
not specified, and I have'not been able to find any law of 
thtf kind. ». ^ 

The next point mad^ by respondent is, that the Muui- 
<;ipal Code distinguishes between local municipalities and 

' those consisting of cities, incorporated towns and vil- 
lages, that the general act for incorporating companies to 
construct macadaij^ised roads is only applicable to local 
municipalitW I think respondent is in error in saying 
that the H. C. art. 27, makes this distinction. The object 
of arts. 26 and 2*7 is not to distinguish what is or is not 
- a local municipality, but to deal with the different <;ou- 
ditions of the territory to which the Municipal Code was . 
to apply. The first article of the M. C. declares that " the 
;Hunicipal Code applies to all the territory of the pro- 
/ vince of Quebec, exijepting the cities and towns/incor- . 

/ porated by special statutes." Again, art. 19 § 1, explains 
the meaning of the word " municipality ;" § 2 explains the- • 

^meaning of the terms. " rural municipality," or "country 
municipality," and $ 3 tells us that the adjective " local " 
when it qualifies the words "municipality," "corpora- 
tion," " council," or " councillor," refers indifferently to 
country, village or town councils, councillors, corpora- 
tions or municipalities. The meaning of this sentence is 
made more clear by the French text which for " refers^ 
indifferently " has " disigne indistinctement un conseil, un con^- 
seiUer, une corporation ou une mumcipalit^ de campagne, de vil- 
lage et de ville." If the distinction insisted upon by res- I 
pondeut could be admitted, the inference might be fair 
enoughs that the 38 Vic, c. 32, did not apply to incor- 
' porated villages, but it seems to me there is no room for 
snch a distinction under these very precise definitions. 



'^i\ 



■% 



; rtwaa^-^n^^^ifis^^ 



'■^8J*S#^'^l^%^? 



OOUBT OF QUEENnS BENCH. 



299 



1884. 



dc la ISiinte 
Clairo 

at 
Loeiare. 



'f he casQ of Iberville tod Jaijes has been relied upon, in 
support of the contention that the powers of the corpo- ^,°'",- "^SP^" 
ration ot I'oint Olaire were not over-ridden by the act 
' incorporating the appellant ; but "that case lays down a 
principle which in no wise affects the present case. What 
wc said there was, that a special right of property, con- 
ferred by an act, was not presumed to be revoked by a 
general act of incorporation, which in express terms did 
not refer to it and which was not incompatible with it. 

The second proposition is that the appellant could only 
charge by the mile. I believe it was even urged that if 
the traveller only went half a mile on the road, he went 
free. This interpretation is . impossible from the na- 
ture pf the thinty even if the terms were more favorable. 
All that is said about it iis, that the company\nay fix any 
rate which shall not exceed the sijbedule B, which allows 
80 much a mile. That is, a traveller shall not pay more 
than 2 cts per mile for the use of the whole road. Be. 
sides such an interpretation would make section 26 an 
absurdity. Thert* would be no use of turnpike gates if 
tljey were'^^not to be used for collecting tolls; and the 
company would be obliged to questioiy^ach traveller as 
to how far he was going and to believe him, or to send a 
special messenger with each, and charge the traveller as 
he left the road. . > , 

1 am to reverse. 

Lejugement formel est redige dans les termes snivants : 

" Consideraift que par lettres patentes octroy^es le 80 
mars 1880 en vertu des dispositions de I'acte 83 Vict., ch. 
32, tel que modifife par I'acte 86 Vic, ch. 26, la compagnie 
appelante a empierre sur une largeur 4e 14 pieds le che- 
min qui lorige le fleuve St-Laurent dans les municipalitfis 
de la paroisse et du village de la Pointe-Clwre, dans le 
comt6 de Jacqiies-Cartier, depuis le chemin de la C6te des 
Sources A l]extr6mit6 Est de la paroisse jusqu'au chemin 
de la C6te St-Oharles ; ^ 

" Et con[sid6rant qu'en vertu de ces lettres patentes la 
dite appeljuite a empierr6 le dit chemin longeant le 4it 
ileuve St-I^aurent dans toute I'dtendue des limites indi- 



I: 



^ 



4? 



Il 



^^-'^- 



800 



J?6e^,.^fJ«l?ip^^5JfB8s^s!H»Ws»#'"W^lWIWfa! 



7 



MONTREAL LAW &EFORTBI 



i«u. 



o. du Oho 
.i|«_P<!iigo 



Li Oio. 

mill _. 

do In Poinio 

Clairv 

■ et 

Luulurv 



!■ 




I.** 


[.V 






iV 




?^ 


*' 


V 


?' 


" 


^\ * 



1^: 



•t 




".Ii 









41 



4 






'I 



■A 



■'..^y • 



•'tar 



qu6e8 on ic^elles, comprenant cette partie de la paroisse de 
la Pointe-Clairo 6rig6e ©u^ village par ordre en conseil dli 
28 septembre 1854 ; | 

"Et considferant quo la compagnio appolante a fait 
pla<'er sur son chemin dans la partie Est de la municipa- 
lit6 du village de la Pointe-Clairo deux barridres ou elh' 
no pr6ldve qu'un soul p^age, les deux barri^ves ayant 6te 
6rigee8 au lieu d'une, afin d'omp6cher les personnes se 
servant du uhemin d'61uder le paiement des droits impo- 
- s68 en faveur de la compa|t^6 ; 

" Et cQi^sidferant qu'il est prouve que I'intim^ a paye 
, a la compagnie appelante pour avoir, le ler aout 1882, 
pa8s6 ll/ois dans la dite barriere les 88 cts qu'il r6clame 
par son action ; " . 

"Et considfirant que I'ii^tim^ r6clame le remboursc- 
ment de cette scpme de 88 cts qu'il pif6tend avoir 6te, 
per9ue sans droit en auttbit : loi. que la compagnie appe- 
lante ne pouvait 6tre autoris6e a empierrer le chemin de 
front dans les limites de la municipalite du village de la 
Poihte-Olaire §rig6e en municipalitfe de village lorigtemps 
avant I'octroi des lettres patentes do la compagnie, et y 
criger des barrieres^^^t que cette municipalite de village 
n'est pas une municipality locale aux termes de I'acte 3a 
Vict., ch. 32; ^ , " ^ 

2o. Que le cl^eimin en question dans la, municipality du 
villflkge ayant deja et6 ompierr6, la compagnie appelante 
ne potivait prelever des peages des proprifetaires tentts a. 
I'entretien de ce chemin sans auparavant rembourser a 
ceux qui I'avaient fait la valeur de lours travaux confor- 
mement ms. dispositions de I'acte 86 Vict., ch, 26, sec< 4; 

" Et considerant que par I'acte 33 Vic,t.,ch. 32, le lieu- 
tenant-gouvernotir en conseil est kutoris6 a octroyer, apres 
I'observation des formalit^s reqijiises, aux proprietaires 
des deux-tiers en valeur des terrajins obliges a I'entretien 
de tout chemin de front, des lettlres patentes autorisant 
tels proprietaires a empierrer tel chemin de front, passant 
dans une ou plnsieurs municipalit^s locales; 

'• Et considerant qu'anx termes jdu '^Code Municipal (84 
Viot., ch. 68, art. -19, § 8) les moidcipalitds locales com- 

k . - - I ' ■ . 



fj-f- 



/^ 



.(,'1 



*^,#ai2sr!^!^i# ' / 



S'.s 3!r»^''-:^ippj<fipr, 



/■• 



.''-.. 



COURT OF QUB?fira BBHfcfi. , v 8Ch 

■ ^ v'^'T' - '"'■■'■• ' 

prennent les munioipaTitfis de villages, et 'tiue I'artiole ^T \*"*- 

dumdmo code cit6 pat\l'intim6 n'est que pour indiquer^i^ig^^'lJ- 
quelles municipalitfifS r^ralos seront' considr^r^os comme^ "'" '^^'"*" 
rounicipalitfis locales, sans ^ard aux municipalitfis .do 
village,, qui tombe;tit' soufi(. liTregle gf!n6ralo 6tablie par 
I'art. 19, $ ^ ; ' 

" Et consideraut q^'on vertu de ses lettres paten tea la 
corapagnie appc^lap-te avait le droit d'erapit^rror le chemin 
(io front commo elle I'a fait dans Li.dito municipality' du 
village de la Pointe-Claire, d'y poser des barri«'res ot d'y^ 
p<>n;evoir des pfiages <;^mmo elle I'a fait ; 

"Et «!onsiderant sur le second i)oint qu'ih n'est pas 
prouVe que ledit chenfiin do front dans le dit village de 
la Pointe-Claire ait jamais {"te ' empierr6, et qu'fi tout eve- 
nement I'intime, n'6ta|it pas, et n'ayant pas ete lors de la 
prise de possession dit dit chemin par la oompagnie ap- 
pelaute, proprietaire d aucune propri6te riveiaine, ne pou- 
vait exiger 1 'exemption etablie par la section 4 de I'acte 
36 Vict., ch. 26, en fayeur de ceux qui auraieut ddjk em- 
pi^rr6 le dit chemin ; '"'' 

"Et considtrant qti'ily aerreur dans lejugement rendu 
par la Cour de premiere instance le quatorze de novembre 



'^' -jflO^'tte CfeuV casse et annule, |btc." 

' ■ ' " y ' Jugement infirmfe. 

St-'Pierre Sf Bussiires, ponr VA]^pe\a.nte. 
■ LaJUimme, Huntington, Laflamme Sr RirJiard, pour I'intime. 

(E.L.) . , ^: ■ 



i 



I- 



i N 



^- 



J 



i,-i». 



'f|4 



t' » 



:>''' 



»; .-.^ 



^ 



802 MOmUBAL LAW REFOR'i 



ApriT^, 1885. 

0»ratn DoiiioN, CJ., Monk, Ramsay, Bauy, .TJ. 

THE QUEEN, 

{Glainuml in Court hetmc), 

Appellant; 

AND 

THE EXCHANGE BANK OF CANADA, 



I'ii' 



AND 



J 7 ■ 
; fl ,1 



m^ 



;f 






""N^: 



h 



I 



MASSTTE AND CAMPBELL et al, 

{CmUeslants belmtj), 

. AND 

THE MERCHANTS BANK OF CANADA, 

I, {Intervenant below), 

^ Respondents. 

Privilege of the Orown^Deposit in Bank—C. p. P. 611, 

Hei,d>-L (Following Monk & AUy. Gerural.Ad L. C. J. 71), that tho pri- 
viloge of the ('rowti for its claims over thoeo of private comiwtinj? 
(ireditoTH is to bo governed by the avil Law of the Province of Quolwc, 
derived from France, and not by tho law of England: 

2. That under C. C. P. «11, in the absence of any special privilege, tlie 
Crown has a preference over chirographic creditors for deposits/Uio 
to it by a bank in liquidation. 

a The holders of notes of the insolvent bank, being accorded by Statute 
a special privilege, (43 V., c. 22, s. 12,) Uke preceOence of the Crown. 

The appeal was from a jud^nent of thg Superior Court, 
Montreal (Mathieu, J.) Dec. 1, 1884, rejecting the claim 
of the. Dominion Government to be paid by privilege the 
sum- 5f ♦237,840.24, amount of deposit in the Exchange 
Bank of Canada, in liquidation. There was a similar 
appeal from a judgment rejecting a like claim of the Pro- 
vincial Gbyemmeut of Quebec. 

DoKiON, C. jfl (<&».) :— ^^ . _ - L 

In September, 1883, the Exchange Bank of Canada was 




™^y, !--n/ "i^ 



'' *^^ ^'''' 



^if^ 



<■ ■nBSJJErT^ 



COURT OF QUSEirS BENCH." 



808 



Riiflhanm 
UaDll. ; 



ik of Canada was 



put in liquidation, under the provinionH of the Act 46 Vict., ""• 
ch. 28 (Canada), and Aloxandet Campbell, P. B. Mathews "^^f^ 
and ThomaM Darling were appointed liquidators. 

On the Ifith March, 1884, the Attornoy-Oenoral for the 
Province of Quebec, filod with the li(|uidator8 in the 
imme of Her Majesty a claim against the cstatt^ of the 
Blink for the sum of 176,000, being the amount of a 
deposit made with the Bank on the 8th of September, 
^1«88; payable with interest at the rate of live per centum, 
per annum, and demanded that the amount duo in princi- 
pal and interest be^paid Jiy privilege out of the assets 
s)f the Bank. ., ^ 

L. H. Massue, one of the respondents, and a creditor 
for a sum of |20,000 deposited with the Bank, on the 7th 
of February, 1888, and the Merchants' Bank, another cre- 
ditor for a sum of $;J,060, as holders of unredeemed bills 
issued by the Exchange Bank, have contested the privilege 
claimed by Her Majesty to be paid l^er claim by prefer- 
ence to other creditors out of the assets to be distributed 
by the liquidators. 

On the 10th March, 1884, the Attorney General for the 
Dbmimon of Canada filed another claim on behalf of Her 
Majesty for a sum of #237,840.27, ofwhich #200,000 were 
for two loans of #100,000 each, inade by the Government 
of Canada to the Exchange Bank, at the rate of five per 
centum per annum, and #37,840.27 were for an ordinary 
deposit, and he also demanded that this last claim, jn 
principal and interest, be paid l^y privilege and preference 
over the other creditors out of the assets of the Bank. 

Massue, the Merchants Bank, and Wilmer C. Wells, 
another creditor of the Exchange . Bank, have contested 
tho privilege claimed on behalf of Her Majesty for the 
payment of this last claim. 

The liquidators have b«ien made parties to these pro- 
ceedings, but they have taken no part in tie contestations, 
simply declaring that they would abide by the judgments 
to be rendered, qu'iU s'en raftpartaiefU d justice: 

There are no difficulties about the facta. The several 
claiiis made by the parties are admitted as well as their 






•* ■■ 



i 



r 



.f. 



''T^ST" 



804 



MONTRBAt LAW REPORTR 



r'-i 



4 

■j m 



if 



f>s«' 









wj ■ — 



y 



m 






'*^ origin. The only dinputod pointn nr«» Int. whothor i\w 

Thoj","" claimd of th« Crown on b«httlf of tho Dominion of 

"CX*' CaniuWiwid-or iTiti. i»rovinco of QuoImm-, nnd which will 

.afiiHorh a lurfffv, proportion of th«i uhhoU of thn tnNo1v<<nt 

'' Exchange Bun K, uro to h»» paid llrnt and in j)reforen«f lo 

all th(> ordinary <>r<Hlitora of th(« Itank ; and 2nd. whothcrt 

thoy aro to bo paid in prtd'oriMiro to tho_M»*r<!hantH BankV 

cJiuni for nnrndiMiinod Ra^k IUIIn, which, by tho nankini; 

A<'t (48 . Vict., «h. 22, h«m*. 12, Canada), is dcclHrml, in cmhq 

of inHolvoncy, to ho a HrHt charge on th<» assnts of th(' 

; IJank. 

The Court below held that the Government of the 
Province of Quebec and the Dominion (Government Wero 
more ordinary cn^ditorH, having no privileg«^ to hn paid by 
preference to the other ordinary creditorH of the entate. 

Fiom this judgment iw6 Appeals have been instituteil, 
one on behalf of the Province? of Quebec, an4 the other;on 
behalf of the Dominion of Canada, but both in the tfa;^<v 
of Her Majesty. i * "W". 

The appepauts claim to have a privilege : .. '* » . 
Ist. By V-irtue^f the rights and prerogatives of the 
Crown as they existed at the time this (country was <;eded 
to GI-r«atBritaii^ and which have then become 4>art of the 
public kw of the land. 

' 2nd. By virtue of the civil law in force in this country. 
8rd. Under the provisions contained in Art. 611 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure. 

The first point on which the appellants rely has already 
been decided in the cases of the Attwnet/ General Sf BUuk, 
Stuart's Reports, 824 ; Mon/q 4* Ouitnet, 19 L.C.J. 71 ; and 
^ Ouimet Sf Marchand^ 5 Revue Legale, 861. 

In these several cases, it has been uniformly held that 
the claims and privileges of the Crown against its debtors 
did not form part of the higher or essential prerogatives 
of the Crown, which had becopie part of the public law 
of the land, when the country was ceded to Great Britain, 
and that they are governed by the laws in force in the 
^ ' Province relating to civil matters. In addition to the 
uniform jurisprudence of our Courts on this point, we'may 






»■■. , 



OOUBT OK QUEKNt BKNCSI. 



806 



wUl that tho rnlo has b«on ropnatcdly raoognixnd and 
aitod ai)on by th« logiHlatioii of thin Provinno. 

% th«*rtu;IoH (M08!>, 11M>4, 20J12, and 20H«l^f th« (^ivil 
('(xlf, and bjr H«^<r«riil Htututoii rofi^rrod to in arti«lo ($07 of 
til.' CTodo of CMvil F'ro.mluro, th« i)riviI«*ff<*M and hyiwthtMH 
of th« ('rown on tho move»hl«« and immov«ahl«« property 
»' >t» dwbtorH have \mm d«*torinin«\d atid roffuI»t<*n, and 
th.'HO wvoral proviHions of our hiw whi(;h w«ro in Iohm^ 
wh.«ii tho British North Ara«ri«5a Art, 1807, was paHs«d, 
w.<'>f»'t¥o»t'«U"d in foHM* by th« 12!>th sootion of that Act. 
y'l^ifl^riirogtttiv** ofth«^ Orown have, thon-forf, nothiuj? 
to^ai^iyith this question. 

^I*rivil«g08 on movoublu property aro gonoral when 
thuy at(a(!h to tho whole of the moveable property of the 
debtor, and special when they only atfect some particular 
obj.M;t»( Art. 1098, an^last paragraph of Art. 1994, 0. C). 

There are only tw<^ artiiiles in the Civil Code which 
have a special reference to the privileges bf the Grown. . 
The first is article 1989, which refers, in general terms, to 
tho special privileges secured to the Crown by the laws 
relating to Customs duties and other disixwitions contained 
in^peoi^ statutes concerning matters of public adminis- 
iration. " - . , 

The other is Article 1994, whivh after providing that 
tho several privileges therein enumerated shall take prece- 
dence in the order they are given, mentions ten classes 
of privil^es on Moveable property, the tenth and last 
being "for the claims of the Croum against persons accountable 
for Us moneys." 

In the French vertion the words are : " La Couronne pour 
criances contre ses comptables." 

The word " comptable " as applied to the debtors of the 
Crown has in the French law a technical meaning. It is. 
used to describe particular officers who had the t(olle<w' 
tidn and management of the Crown revenues and ;|jfere , 
accountable for the same. (Nouveau Dfinisart, vo. C^^t- j 
abl(^). In France the king had a privilege oft all tl^ pro- " ~ 
perty of his amptables for any balance of the mo^s for 
Voi^ I. Q. B. 20 



Thfl UuMii 



^ 



.1 • 



.1 



ti 



»!V ll 






806 



HONTRRAL LAW RRFORTR. 



^- f 






m 



i 



»•» 







i 

;l 
I 



Tho Uuoon 
K:«ilhiin(» 



jy 



Which t1w»y wprro iircnnntihio ■■ irtwh (IWtt of T»fmi). Tint 

thin j>fiviltfg«f (lid not apply to oth««r cUimii of th« ('rown 

Thii In qloarty (mtabUNhnd it) tho Ibllowing poNMagtw of tho 

Noavt>nn rV'tiinart, Vo. ()oiiiptublu,| 8, No. II, wh«ri<iii Ihi- 

niithom of that valnabln <cfll<>qtioii, nay : 

No. 11. — " II no fimt piiH cor^oiulrn lnii|i>rAaii(^ofi qn« !•» 

• " Koi «uer«o t'ontni uii romptnblo on quatJtA do romptnfi^c 

•* ftvoc Um oWiannei porMonn(dl/>H qu'il |Mmt avoir contra Ic 

" inAmo parti«'uli»^rh Par arr*t da 14 mai, 174H, lo Conm'H 

" a jug^! <mtre le controlenr dm ImnH dV'tat ««t Ion fflrmiorK 

_ " g6n6raax, quo coux-ri doivont Hwi p&yO.H <Iom Nomiium 
*' duoH par lo Siour nouvolniH, r<i<!Ovour du taba«^ i\ I'arJH, 
" pour roliqaat do compto do sa rocotto, Kur lo prix provo-, 
■" nant do la vonto do son ofFots, par privilfigo ot prftf6ron(M5 
" au Roi, ordancier du mA^o noftrolaiN k ciauso d'un pr«>t 
'* fait A re partiimlior pour favorisor I'ontropriso do la 
" vorrerio do S^ivre." " » 

) Tho OmtrAfeur den htma (F^lnt ropr<>flont(Kl tho claim of tho 
king, while the Formier« C>An6raux exon^ined thoir <ilaim 
in ceuionnaires of the duties on tobacco, whi(^h dutioi 
constituted a privileged claim. This samearrdt is also citod 
in the work known as Old D^nisart, Vo. Comptable, with 
somewhat greater deyelopmeiits. 

It is evident, that it is in th<' sense attributed to it in the 
French law, that the word complahle has been used in 
Art. 1904 of the Civil Code, wh^ch is not given as new law, 
but as being in accordance with the rules and principios 
which prevailed' before tho Code as to the causes of 
preference which gave rise to privileges among cre<litoT«, 
-By this laifit article the privilege of the Crown, when not 
coming within tho class of spe«*ial privileges mentionml 

',, in Article 1989, was restricted as it was before the Code to 
claims arising out of the collection or management of the 
revenues of the Crown by " Comptables" that is by snch^ 
persons as were accountable for the same, and it did not 
apply to claims for loan of money, or for deposits, or claims 

^founded upon ordinary contracts. This privilege, which 
is a general privilege affecting all the moveables of the 

/eomptablen, was placed the last in the order of preference, 



-.. ■■■-:\-- 



OnURT or QUERN'S umciL 



807 



' iHK 



•mong thil <Hh«W jJlfW^TTfl pflvftnjfo*, ftfflrttiiii in TH« rahlt 

whi(!h it aiwuyii hold in tho Vnuuh b^flfiiiUtiou. (I'dLhiitr ''^•f""* 

Pro,'. Oivll.t. K<1. Bugiiot, p 22«l, U. »\. Troplong, l>iv. "ife'* 
V Kyp. Nd* JMO. 

Th«ro b«ung no oth«r artl<"l« in tho Orxlo, nor ftny other 
prrtviMion of law iillowing to thu (5rown a gt^noral privi- 
It'sfn, Dx«Mpt thiN artith* ll»l> J of tho (Mvil (?o<lo, th«< ntnond 
prtUonnion of tho appwUantrftntt undyr th<' oivil law. an 
<>xiiiting in thiH (Hmntry, tho Crown in ontitlod to bo paid 
by privilogo tho amount of itn oJaimH oftt of tho aitHotM of 
lh« Bxt^hango Baiik, in without any foundation. 

Tho third and lartt proponition urgod on .Itohalf of H«r 
Mi^oMty iH, that undor art. «ni of tho Cmlo of CJivil Vttnw 
diiro all tho olaimH of the OroWn, whatovor may hn'JJU^r 
nature or origin, aro privilogod and nhould ho pai<Pi'n 
profflrjmcfl toall othor oroditora. ^ '"^ 

ThiH artiolo providoM that : " Ii^ tho abHonco of any Hp<v 
" tial privilogo, tho Crown hoH a protoronco ovor ohirogra- 
" phi«^ (Toditors for Huras duo to it by tho dofondaut." 

Tt in unfortunato that tormn HcTvaguo and oo gonoral 
Imvo be«»n uHod in »;onn«i<'tion with thin diifioult Hubjort. 
Tho Himplo roadingof tho artii;lo 8U^go8tH important dilfi- 
cultios and shows that it is most ambiguous. 

Is it, in tho absenoe of any special privilege whatsoever, 
or only in tho abs(lnce of any special privilogo of the 
Crown, that tho Crown has a preference over (Chirographic 
rr<>d)tor8 ? Does that preferoni^e extend over all (chirogra- 
phic; creditors, whether they have a privilege or not 'i And 
lastly, does tho preference exist only for suras due by^ 
a dofoudant, and is there no preference where, as in this 
I'aso, there is ^o defendant ? ' , . 

ff it is said that this preference talced place only when 
there are no special privileges whatsoever coming in con- 
tact witti the claims of the Crown, then the preforence or 
privilege of the Crown does not depend, as all other pri* 
vih'ges do, on the favor of its claims (Art. 1988-1984 0. C.), 
but on the (tccid(mt whether there are or are not special pri- 
vihjges claimed on the property of its debtor. This diffi- 
culty, leading to a subversion. of (Ul principles with regar 



ff- 



^ 



r 











^•h¥^K 






-^^m 



UfT 






H' 



f tk 






.J 



r 



^0mW 



<kif 



^ 



%'• 









188S. 

The Quoon 

Ezcthiingc 
Bunk. 



"n<' 






{ 



'«- 



U 



I'M 



»«» 






'HI 

I S« 






808 



MONTREAL tAW BEFOBTa 



to privileged claims, disappears if we apply these Wdrds : 
" in the absence of anp special irrivikge" to the special pri- 
vileges of the Crown only, using those words in contra- 
distinction to the general privileges of the .Crown and to 
distihgnish the order or rank appertaining to each.* ^ 

Again, there are two classes of chirographic creditors : 
. those that have a preference or privilege* and those that 
have none. ;_ . 

Guyot, in his Rep. Vo, Chirographaire, § 7, says: "On 
" piiut distihguef deux sortes de crfiances chirographaircs ; 
" les uues n'ont aucun droit de pr6ference par elles m6me ; 
" on les appelle chirographaires ordinaires : les autres qui par 
" leur objet ont un droit de preference, soit sur la masse 
" entiere des bien&, soit sur certains biens particnlidres ; 
" on les nomme privil6gi^8. Les fraiis d'enterrement, les 
" honoraires des m^decins de la derniere maladie sont de 
" cette derniere classe." The words, chirograptpc creditors, 
have been used in the article without any restriction or 
qualification whatever. Is the preference to be given to the 
claims of the Crown under Art. 611, G.P.C., to supersede 
all other privileges, even those which from the remotest 
period have been with ua considered as sacred, such as 
the privileges for funeral expenses, and of physicians 
and servants' wages ? I am glad to firfd that we are all 
i^eed on this, that the words chirogrt^hic creditors in this 
article do not apply to all chirographic creditors, but only to 
the ordinary chirographic creditors who have no privilegea 
claims. We are also all of opinion, that, the word defendant 
in this article is to be interpreted as i^eanihg the debtor 
^of the claim of tl^e Crown whether such debtor be a 
defendant or not. >^ i^ 

All this shows that this short article is not a very clear 
one, and that to make sense of it, thejprocess of interpreta- 
tion mn8t'1)e applied to it, to a considerable degree: for 
howevier obscure or insufficient a law may be, we cannot 
j^refase to adjudicate ( Art, 11, C.C. ), and'it is our duty to 
interpret a doubtful or ambiguous law, so as to fulfil the 
intention of the legislature and to attain the object for 
which it was passed. — (Art, 12, C.C.) *• 



»fi'' 



1 

1. 



f 



OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCR 



.809 



Another rule of interpretation applying to th(&/*Oivil 
Code and to th6 Code of Civil Procedure, as laid down by 
tho Lords of the Privy Council in the case of Carter Sr 
Molson (8, H. of L. and P.^C. Cases, 680), is, that although 
flic C6d«^ of Civil Procedure has cbm^ into force later than"^ 
the Civil Code, the two form part of one general system, 
and must stand and be construed together as if they formed 
bat one code. ^ ^*i 

The object of the Civil Code is to fix the rules and prin- 
ciples by which the rights of Individuals are to be deter- - 
mmtMl jihat of the Code of Civil Procedure is to establish ^ 
rules for the exercise of these rights before courts^ of 
justice. Therefore, whenever a provision is found in the 
CiYil Code, the intention of th^ legislature must neces- 
sarily have been thereby to confer or determine a right, 
and when it is found in the Code of Civil Procedure the 
intention must have been. to. provide a remedy for enforc- 
ing rights and not to alter existing rights or to confer 
additional ones. 

There is an incident^ with reference to this Art. 611, 
bearing upon the intention of tire legislature, which has 
some signifipance. ^^ 

The Code was prepared under a statute which authorised 
the Commissioners to embody in the Code of Civil Proce- 
dure for Lower Canada, all the laws then in force in the 
ft-ovince relating to procedure in civil matters and cases, 
and to suggest such amendments as they thought desira- 
ble, with their reasons, and to report to the Governor 

(Cons. Statutes for L.(D., chap.J, am 6, 6, and 8). The code 
so prepared was submitted,^ ti the legislature and adopted 
with such amendments a^ were thought necessary, and 
referred back to the Commissioners under the statute 29 and " 
30, Vict.» ch. 26, to incorporate tjbie amendments with the "^ 
Code, the Commissioners being isuthorised to alter the | 
I immbeii% of titles and articles of the Code or;their order, ^ 
tocorrect any error whether of commission or of omission, 
I or ^y contradiction or ambiguity, in the original Roll, but 
I mthout chmgmgUs tffect /—which Roll so corrected, being 
signed by the Governor and Obuntersigned by the Piovin- 



1880. 

ThoQoMii 

EzohMice 
Builu 




*if! 



If?t^ 



.-Ml 





















s 



<; 



,1 



1 i 



\ 



1885. 

Thi! Quoen 

& 

ExohuiiBO 

Diiiik. 



310 



"N^V 



MONTREAL LA.W BEFOBTSL 



».<-^ 



FN 



* 



cial Stnretary or Assistant, and deposited with the Clerk ol" , 
the Legislative Council would become law as the Code ok 
Civir* Procedure of Lower Canada, from a day to l)e 
liied by Proclamation. Wiien this statute was passed 
this provisioflTuow comprised in Article 611,was neither iu 
the ^original lioU nor in the amendments adopted by the 
legislature. It was when the Commissioners were em- 
bodying in the original Roll the amendments adopted by 
the legislature, and making the necessary corrections 
under the authority they had received 'by statute, that 
articl^Bll was introduced into the Code. It cannot be 
st^dT^that the legislature intended to alter not only the 
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also those 
of the Civil Code by an addition made under these circum- 
stances and of which it ki^ew nothing, nor is it conceiva- 
ble that the Commissioners themiselves, in direct contra- , 
ventiou of the instructions they had received, not to 
alter the effect of the Code as adopted by^^ the legislature, 
should have intentionally destroyed the Whole economy of 
Article 1994 of the Civil Code on privileges, by introduc- 
ing into th^ Code of Civil Procedure a disposition foreign 
to its object, and creating a most extraoi-dinary and impor- 
tant privilege in favor of the Crown. /The aBsence of any 
intention to change the law in the manner it is pretended, 
it was changed by. Article 611, is niade more manifest^ jf ' 
possible, by the fact that on the very day that the le^sla- 
ture adopted the Code of Procedure and its amendments, 
and directed the Commissioners to 'make no correction 
which would alter its effect, it passed a statute, the 29th 
and 30th Vict. ch. 43, by which it abolished the privileges 
attached to the claims of the Crown in tJpper Canada, and 
in that respect placed the claims of the Crown oA the same 
footing as those, of private individuals. This is perhaps 
an unimportant circumstance, but still it is another evi- 
dence that the legislature could have no intention to 
extend, by the Code of Civil Procedure, the privileged 
claims of the Crown established by the Civil Code. 

There are besides several articles in both codes on^this ,] 
very question of privilegej^hich bear intrinsic evidence 






*Kh' 



yith the Clerk ol" 
r as the CoDE ok 
rom a day to l)e 
lite was pa88(!(l 
Ll.was neither iu 
3 adopted by the 
ioners were em- 
ents adopted by 
sary corrections 
by statute, that 
e. It cannot be 
ter not only the 
e, but also those 
ler these circum- 
[)r is it conceiva- 
in direct contra- 
received, not to 
ji7 the legislature, 
^hole economy of 
^es, by introduc- 
sposition foreign 
inaryand impor- 
le aBseuce of any 
jr it is pretended, 
rnore )nanife[ft,.^j| 
' that the le^sla- 
its amendments, 
ke no correction 
itatute, the "29th 
ed the privileges 
}per Canada, and 
rown oA the same 
This is perhaps 
t is another evi- 
no intention to 
3, the privileged 
Divil Code, 
oth codes on^this , 
atrinsic evidence 



COURT OP QtJEEirs BENCH. 



811 



that there was no intention of changing, limiting, or 
extending by the Code of Procedure the privileges estab- 
lished by the Civil Code. ^rt. 2008 of the CiviltJode says : 
" Other rules concerning ffie collocation oj certain primleged 
daims, are to be found in the Code of Civil Procedure." 

The rules in the Code of Civil Procedure were therefore 
only intended as " instructions to regulate " the collocation 
of privileged iclaims. ^ 

Then article 605 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts 
that : " the moneys are distributed according to the order 
prescribed in the title of Pbivilkoek and Hypothecs 
and the title of Merchant Shipping in the Civil 
Code, and in the provisions hereinafter jiJontained." Here 
again is an express reserve of the privileges settled by 
the Civil Code, jind a declaration that they are to be col- 
located accamding to the order therein prescribed; There 
is here no indication of an intention to change or extend, 
them by Art. Oil, coming as it does almost immediately 
after this ex2>ress declaration. 

Apart from tj|^ question of intbntion, which acco^ing 
to our article 12, C. C, is th6 primary and controlling rule 
of interpretation of our laws, is there anything iu article 
611 to repeal or supersede the privileges of the Crown 
againi^t its ctmptables, and to substitute another and more 
epEtended privilege in its place ? / 

•(As we have already seen, the two cddes must be' con-° 
stoned together, and by placing in juxtaposition the several 
arhcles of both referring to the privilege^ claims of the 
Crown, we shall be able to arrive at their exact meaning. 
The first Qf these articles is article 1989, which in generaf 
terms refers to statutes crbating special privileges/in favor . 
of the Crown. Art. 607 of the Oo4e of Civil Procedure 
completes this article by enumerating the subjects to 
which these statutes refer. 

Tli^n article 1994, CO., confers on the Crown a general 

privilege ot-er all the property of its com^ables. By adding 

to this article the provision of art. 611 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure, the two will read as foUo^; Art. 1994, C. 0. 

The claims which carry a privily imon moveable pro- 



1885. 

The Queen 

Kxohange 
Bank. 



"i i' 



V: 




812 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



188& 

The Queen 

Bxohitnge 
Buk. 



|r i 









-4- 



("&i 






perty are the following, and when several of them conns 
together they take pretiedence in the following order, &c. 
. . 10. The claims of the Grown against persons accounta- 
ifte foryts wio»i«vs.— Art. 611, C.C.P., " In the absence of ana 

^ " s/tecial jtrivUege. the Crown luis a preference over chirographic 
"jr^tfitqHfar sums due to it by the (Ufendant)' 
' theWeaningof these several articles is that the Orowii, 
by article 1089, h^s special privileges affecting particular 
property, which according to Art. ({07, are to be p4id by 
preference over all other creditors on the property subject 

\ to them, the Art. 1989 establisliing the right and Art. 607 
thejrank. Then article 1994 gives to the Crown a general 
privilege" against its epwp/oA/es,' that is, a privilege attach* 
ing t6 all the property of its comptables, whieh^^its fiirder 
comes after all the otheV privileged claims, afad article 611, 
which is'^ mere rale of procedure, {^direction to the offid^rs 

. of the- court how to distribute the moneys levied, (see title, 
of the section and paragraph in which it is placed), says : 
" j&^Kj^/te 'absence, of anii special jnivUegk (that is in the case 

' thai the Crown has no special privilege, for if it had any, 
its ciiains should; according to articles 1989 and 607 be paid 
out of the proceeds of the property subject to such special 
privilege in prefcrence to all oth^r cr^itors) tlie Crown 
has a jtreference over' chirographic credilitrs, Vthat is ordinary 
cliirographic i;reditor8,) for sums due to it by the defendant " 
(that is,« by me debtor of a privileged d^Bbt undet art. 

1994.) ■-.;■.>:., ' : , >:■ • - A . ■''.■■-:,- 

My reading of these combined articles coVcernitfg ,thb 
privileged claims of the Crown is,* that whek the CroM 
has-rrspecial privilege, its claim ^hall, according to Art. 
607, be paid by prefere'nqe to all other creditors, (whicli 
terms may have again to be limited in certainl contingen- 
cies not occurring in the present case), and that ^hen the 
Crown has no special privilege, its other privilege(i claims, 
that is those mentioned in art. 1994 shall be paid in prefer*- 
enc|e to thost^ of the ordinary chirographic creditors. 

Bffect is thus given to the provisions of both codes 
acepriding to their respective objects and to the intention 
of the legislature. ^ :* 









-;■ 



«^» 



'cpiTBt OF QITEEir'S BB^S. X 



ma 



818 



It may b«) j^aid that it is c^bjuctionable to restrict and 
alter^the ordinary 'meaning of 'words used in Acts ol the 
legislature* It would, no doubt,, b^ better' if^ the Acts 
of the legislative bodies w^re ^p clearly ex;^s8«d that it 
was never required to apply to them any of the numerous 
legal rules of interpretation id understand their exact 
meaning; but Arfi 611 is not Qf that class, and in the 
judgment about to be rendered in this (/ase, the court, by 
deciding that the Merchants ^aiilk is to be paid its claim 
ill preference to ^e Grown, is obliged to reistrict, as I do, 
to ordinary creditors, .the meaning^ of the words' chirogra- 
phic credtiars, and by deciding that Ithe Grown has a privi- 
lege on the property of the Exchange Bank, it expressly 
rules that the Vvord debtor must be substituted for defen- 
dant—there being no defendant in th\B case. It jilso 
leayei out the words " In the (^sent^ of any special jtrivi- 
lege" which, I think, are to be u^edlo limit to other 
privileged claims of the Grown, the preference mentioned 
in' Act. 611. ' . 

The ^rincipid diiFerence between the^ members of the 
Court is, that I have applied the rules of interpretation in 
this case, so as to keep intact the provisions of both codes, 
while the majority of the Court apply theip so as to destroy 
the provisions of Art. 1994, d. G^tiionc^rning the privilege 
of the Grown, and to substitute a more extended privilege 
in its stdid, by an Article in the Gode Of Procedure which 
has a totally diffe^'ent object. ' 

Troplong, des Privileges and Hypot^dqn^s,<Nos. '64 and 
65, discusses a case arising out of the IFrencih codes, very 
analogom^ to the -present one. By Art. 2101 and 2102, 
C,' N., certaiii privileges were tanked p^ior to the j>rivilege 
of tljje landlord, and in Art. 662, of the Code of Givil 
Procedure, it- is declared that the costs of suit are to be 
paid, by. privilege, be^re all other claijns,' except that for 
house rent, — and the point is examined whether this last 
article had the effect of changing*the priority of privileges 
as establidljed by the articles 2101 and 2102 of the Civil 
Code i and he' concludes by saying thht this cannot be : 
" A moint de voukrir Um Ceiprit tie ^ loitKtec lalettrejmUl^te- 



Tho Uu«en 

Kxohanio 
l)>nk. 



#::'^' 


i 


} j 






i 




■• \ 


' 


M 





814 



MONTKEAL LAW RErORTR 



UW. 

TIlD UllCPII 

Bxriiiiniru 
Jiiiiik. 







^ 




♦ 




^■;i 




f 












■4 






»l 



■•$' '^f 



Mcn/ apjilu/u^e." In hia observations on this point, Trop- 
long cites Pothior, who, (ommenting on Art. 468, (wc) of 
the Custom of Paris, whic^stablishes a privilege in favor 
9f the Maitre d'Hotel " avimi Umi autre" says : "cot article 
_ 'I slentond qu« dcs or6anuiers ordinaires, ot uon de teem 

s. ," (][ui auraient i;n privil6ge plus fort que lus Seigneurs 
r d'Hotel." 

These are remarkable applications of the jxiftwer of 

intcrpi-etation of ambiguous or coufii(;ting enactments : 

.and they are in cases so analogous to the present case that 

» they may well be followed. ' Ah Portalis' said in his Dis- 
• ours Pr^liminaird sur lo Code Civil (1st Locr6, p. 2(14, 
No. 17). " II y a une. science pour Te legislateur, comnio 
*' il y en a- une pour les magistrats, et I'une ne resaemble 
" pas k I'autre. La science du legislateur cousiste k trouver 
" dans chaque matiere Ids principes les plus favorables 
" au1)ien commun ; la science du magistrat est de mettrp 
" ces principes en action, de les ramifier, defies 6tendre par uue- 
" application. sage et raisonnee aux hypotheses privies, 
" d'itudier fesprit qmnd la let^re tue, et de ue pas s'exposer 
" au risque d'etre tour a yiour esclave et rebelle et de 
" d6sob6ir par esprit de s«4vitud:iB." ' , 

At p. 265, the same leaned jurist saysP: " Dans cette im- 
" mensit6 d'objets divers qui cofmposent les matidros 
" civiles, et dont le jngetnent, dans le plus grand nombr^ 
" de cas, est moins I'application d'un texte pr6cis, que I» 
" combinaison de plusieurs textes qui conduisent i'la 
" d6cipion biea pli;is ^^iHIb ne la renferment, on ne petit I 
" pas plus se passer de jurisprudence qtte de lois." 

When the law is obscmfe it hbs to be interpreted, when 

it conttdns' dispositions which apparently conflict with 

each other, such dispositions have to-be compared so as 

, to ascertain their combine^ meaning; in my efforts to 

do so, I have not been able to satisfy myself that it had 

^been the intention of -the legislature change by Art. 
611 of the Code.of Civil Proc^ure, not only ^the provisi^ 
of Art. 1994 of the Civil Code with reference to lie 

- generd privilege of th^Crqi^, but, also the whole basis, 
and principle on which this^ privileged rests, nor that in 



• -» 



,^ 






\; 



COURT OF QtJ^N'8 BENCH. 



816 



n^alitf the artido had su<!h effect. I am therefore of 

opinion that tht;)^ Crown ha« no priority^ preference or pri- 
• viltfge to be paid out of the assets of the Exchange Bank 

boforo the ordinary creditors of the Bttnk ; that they should 
^aIll)o paid, ptiri passu, in i>roportion to the amonn*^ ot. their 

{■ospective claims, and that the judgfafent of the Court 

below should be confirmed. . ' * 

Ramsay, J.: — • \ \ - 

There are two cases, one for a deposit by the government 
of Canada jn the Exchange Bank, insolvent; the other for 
a deposit, by the goverrimenj of the province of Quebec. 

No distinction is nlM6 between the claims of the Jwb 
governments, and I think rightly, for it appears to me, 
that although the Queen is not directly a part of the locaj 
legislature' or government, yet that the powers of the 
lotal legislatures and governments being dismemberments 
of the sovereign authority, the same reason exists for 
allowing to the local government ttf^se privileges* which 
apiwar to be the natural appauagt) of sovereignty. I ^there- 
fore' think that if the claim is founded in the Dominion it , 
is so also in the local government, v^fithin its territorial 
limits at all events. 

The claim is this, that the debt due to the government 
is privileged and takes preci^dence of all chirographic 
14 debts whatever. The pretention t)f the respondents is, 
• Hhai the government has nio privilege at all, except when 
discussing the moveable property of its comptable, anQ. that 
then it has a limited privilege. The Merchants Bank 
ooutends, mor$ov0ir, iha^t the holders of the notes of the 
insohrent bank have a special' privilege which overrides 
any othier privilege over the assets of the bank. 
Jn process of the argument in^npport of these preten- 
tions, three q&estions have been specially urged on our 
attention': ■- '•- ■■ v- -::"... • ."'. -^ ' ' 

First. It is submitted, whether the public law of the 
Empire or the municipal law of the province shall govern 
the proprietary rights of the Crown in this province. 

Secondly. Whether ihe article 19H CO. is drawn under 



iws. 

The queen 

* ■» 

BxuliniiKe 
bunk. ' 



'7m 



^t^l- 



\ ■' 



■h\ 



t 



816 



MONTREAL LAW R£FORm 



iHHft. y t}|y influi'iico ol' the ideas of the English pnbli*; "law, %xA 



Tlut Union 



n 



UxoilHIIIIU 

atiik. 




■ISm 



I \ ^"^^ 



f,-\ 



ronsuqnently that it is to he interpreted in couBoiiance with 
these ideas, and hence that it gives the Crown a 8pe<;iul 
privilege overall its debtors' moveables, no matter what be 
the cause ol' the iudebtedness. ' 

Thirdly. Whether in any ctiHe the article (Jll, 0. C. 1'., 
does not irench every ditfi«;ulty by its e^xpress words. 

The first of these questidns has been so frequently under 
the consideration of the courts of this province, as tp 
render it impossible for us to decide otherwise thuu 
that the privilege of the Queen st-i'ekiug ordinary proprie- 
tary rights in our i;ourts, is that derived from the King of 
France. In the case of Monk i^ The Attorney OenereU if wtw 
formally decided in 1874, " that the privilege of the Growu 
for its claims over those of private competing creditors, is 
to be governed by the laWof Canada and not by the law of 
England," 1© L. C. J. tl. In the civil code, with the assent 
of the whole legislature of the old Province of Canada^ it 
was declared as a part of the ^municipal law of Lower 
Qanada that " in default of a surviving consort the succes- 
sion, falls to the Crown," article 687. And in a contest 
between the Attorney General of the Dominion and the 
Attorney General of Quebec, we a\^arded the vacant estate 
of F. to the local Government. In a similar case arising in 
Ontario, the Court of Appeal decided as we did, implying 
that it was not a right derived from the greater preroga- 
tives of the Crown ; and that decision, being reversed by 
the Supreme Court, the Privy Council re-affirmed the 
judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal. In 1828 it was 
held that the Crown could recover interest ad .any other 
cdnld under our municipal law. The Attorney Generai Sf 
Black, S. R. 824. And in Ross 8f J>e Leryet at., we held, not 
two years ago, that whatever might be the right of the 
King of England to mines and minerals, by the laws of 
^gland, as the successor ot the King of France, in this 
ptovince his right's (greater or less) were those of the King 
of France. 6 Leg. News, 407. T^ '' 

The second point appears to me to be governed by what 
has been said. At all eventa, it would reqairo words very 



•^1 



COURT OF QUEl^ 6EN0H. 



IMB. 
TheQu 
RiflhnQRu 



iiuMn 



ClfllinQi 

Itunk. 



■■\\ 



A;\ 



V^;^: 






t 



distinctly borrowed from the mr^of England to ind/kice a 
court to 8e«jk for tho^ intorpretatii*!: of these vroniHtih that 
liiw, which' unqueHtionably-i(8 riV)jt our law on tfittaattor. 
Rut really the word " a<x!mintable," mmptabli^jL not a 
(.«rra of the Enfflish law* to* de^ribe the relation oC the 
collector of the revenue to t|ie Sovereign ; but it ii{ pterin 
of the French law. Again',' if'we take accountable i|i its 
ordinary sense, was it ever pretended that a debtor Wa^ 
accountable to his creditor.? It would hv> a perversion "j^f 
language to maintain such a proposition, ' Again; it is 
said that if the French law^is to rule, the bank, in whi(;h 
the government deposits, is a comptMe by statute. There 
is no such statute.; there is a law ordering the. c»mptabte to 
deposit in a bank under certain circnmstanc^es, but the 
bank remains banker and is never comptable. I may add 
that, so far as the local act is concerned, it would be uUra 
?/Ve» to change the character of a bank, and to alter its 
affinities with the civil law* I am, therefore, of opinion 
that article 1994 does not support the pretention of the 
appellant. ** 

We come now to the third question, that is, the effect 
of article 611 C. OP. We have heard the presence of this 
article explained, or attempted to be explained. It s^ins 
probable that it wa^ introduced after the bill had passed 
making the€ode law. The story is this : article 611 C. 0. P. 
wa« not itttheroll of the c^e deposited in the Legislative 
Council. It Was desired to add to the Code of Civil Proce- 
dure other amendments. These were passed and set forth 
in a schedule to the act 29 & 80 Vic., ch. 26, of the old 
Province of Canada. By the tict itself; the commissioners 
were authorized to incorporate these amendments in the 
Code, changing the form but not the substlui(», the Code 
was then to be printed, and, as printed, it Was to be law. 
When the printed form was fully investigated doubts 
naturally arose as. to whether the Commissioners had 
exercised the powers delegated to them precisely. It is 
perfectly certain they had not done so as to Ait. 611, which 
is as conspicuous for its absence from the Schedule to the - ( 

Act of the 29 8f 30 Vic, as from the original roll of the 



:»■■■ .': 


.■ ' 


1 


•.M < 


i 


1 


> 


1 ; i; 


'\ ' 


■.A. . ■% 



v-- -■ 



-f^ 



I'i 1 ; 



V- 



818 



MONTREAL LAW RKP0RT8. 



!)•■ 



Tlis QuMn 

Riahantn 
- Umik. 









^£2^iU«M 






i 
Jii 

f.'\ <■ 



if 



'\ 



.- ' 't 



Oodfl. It IH totally now law, ad has boon 8hown, I think. 
cUmrly, and it iiuver re<-(*iv(Hl tho IcuHt h^^^ittlative hhiio 
tion. Had inattorN romainod in thin (Condition, it would^ 
not l)<» dilUimlt to d«al with Art. 611, C.C.P. It was a 
maniteNt addition to thtt Act, and muNt have bflon «a(;iN(H| 
liko any addition to th« Parlianiontary roll. But toavoiti 

. th» litiu^atioi| ariuin^ from thin extraordinary HounK), lht> 
LcgiHlaturo of thiu Provimio paNuod an Art, 81 Vic, ch. 7, 
by the 10th Settion of whi<ih it w provided that: — "The 
tUvil Code of Lower (Canada and the Code oK Civil Pro- 
r«»dure of Lower Canada, as printed he/we the TJnion by Ihf 
Qiu'en'H printer (yf the former Provinrn of Canada, hiivt» 
been and are in foree as law in thin Provin<;o ; and no Act 
or Provision of the Legislature in any way affoets ayy 
Artitle of either of the said Codes unless such Article ig 
Expressly designated foV that purpose.'* Now it is <on- 
tended that we are to set this Statute aside, in so far as 
regards Art. 611, C.C.P. It would doubtless be very 
equitable to do so if we have the necessary authority ; but 
I know of no principle of interpretation that will justify 
a Court in etfacing or modifying the disposition of a Sta- 
tute so A6 to destroy its effect in a particular case of evidoiit 
hardship. It would be easy, but totally useless to go 
thfough the cases, -for they are all one way. The clear 
disposition of a modern Statute is ^ever set aside. The 

.case most in point I kTnow of is Career iSf Molson, (') which 
went to the Privy Council. There was no doubt as to the 
intention of the Legislature. ' The Civil Code had recog- 
nized the imprisonment of the debtor in cases similar to 
the one in question, " and in the manner and form speci- 
fied in the Code of Civil Procedure," (Art. 22*74.) The 
Code of Civil ProcMure 8ai4 nothing about the maiiney 
and form. There was lio special need of articles to declare 
the manner and form of sending a man to jail; yet neither' | 
this Court nor the Privy Council would say ^hat this 
allusion to the Code of Civil Procedure was unnecessary, 
or merely explanatory of what appear^ there. This was j 
going a long way in one direction, but how in face of i 
(')OLeg. NeW8,n89;8,H.ofL,&P.g. C,^8e«,530. " 



/ "^ 



-^ ^ 



■.w 



f,:^^Y^*^'^WM' r" 



'??•'/» 't'f 



OOURT OF QUEHra BENCH. 



810 



nxu'h a rnling on a qunfltion of tho gonoral publV law of 
thoonii^ire. w« <ould v«nture to Maoridctt 611 of th« Pro- 
rcduro Codo I (^anuot hoo: 

It has hoeii said in tht) diRsontin^ opiniAi that art. «11 
is not clear. I cannot soo any obscurity. Whoever drew 
it evidently wom fully conHciouij of what he was dointf. 
Amonff tho arti<;leH of the Oode of Civil Pro<<Mlure, art. 
(511 seems to me to b^ c^nspicuouK for its cleorness. ^ It 
is a very evil innovation but it is very well expressed 
" In the absen^io of any special privileape, the Crown has 
a preferen<'.e over chirographic (Teditors, for sums due to 
it by the defendant." We are therefor^ constrained, most 
nnwillingly, to reverse th«5 judgment as far as regards 
the unprivileged claims, The judgment will distinguish as 
to the case of the Merchants Banl^claim for preference as 
to the notes in circulation of the^nsolv^nt bank» which 
are protected by a special privilege, to which the Crown 
privilege must yield. 

The following is the text of tho judgment : 

" Considering that iq. the absence of any special privi- 
lege, the Crown has a preferen(;e by law over chirogra- 
phic; creditors for sums due to it by the insolvent ; 

" Considering that the Merchants Bank of Canada, as a 
holder of notes- of the said Exchange Bunk of.Canada, 
amounting to the sum of $8,060, without security, has a 
spec^ial privilege for the n^payment of the said sum of 
^3,050; • ^^ 

" And considering that there is no error, in the judg^ 
meiit of the Court below, to wit, the judgment of the 
SuiMirior Court rendered at Montreal, on the Ist day of 
D.Vember> 1884, in so far as the said judgment maintained - 
tho intervention of the said Merchants Bank, the Court 
hcn^ doth so far affirm the said judgment, akd this Court 
doth further recommend that costs may be allov^ed in 
favor of the said Merchants Bank as well in the Cpurt 
nelow as in this Court ; ■ ' ^»^•_ . ^ 

" And considering that the respondents Louis H. Mas^ 
TOO and Wilmer C. Wells have invoked no special privi- 
legc in and by their petitions and interventions, and ftr^ 



tlH. 
Th« QacMi 

itniili. 



/ ■% 



A 






••(fr?-,: 



^ 



;3£.. 



,,, 



m 



* 



:i-: 






tl. 



'I 



ii\ 



IMfc 
Th« QiMM 



.^ 






Ih ,?: 



If 

(It: 






/^ 






^.^- 






t^ 



820 



MONTBKAL LAW REmRlU 



liL 



•pwk 



in fA<^t Nimplo chiro^Aphic rroditori of thn Mid BxchAniiri> 
Bauk ; 

" Ami AoiiNidoriiiff, thor<«fon\ thnl thorn ih orror in the 
fiaiil judf^inont rondnretl on Iho tut day of DtHoinltor, IKS I, 
iu< far UN ro(][iirdH tho contoHttttion ol (iOUJM H. Mawiae and 
th«i intt»rv<Mition of th« Haid Wilnu'r ('. W«'ll«, doth no llir 
rovHirNfl th(> Hamn, and pro«!«H>ding to rtMid^^r th<t jud^mviit 
which tho Haid 8uiMirior Oourt ought to havr rendcWd 
doth dlHiniHR tho rontoHtation of tho Haid LouiH II. MasMUf 
with coNts af* woU of the Cburt Iwlow iw thoHo incurred 
in this ('ourt, and doth furthor roj«ot tho intorvontion of 
tho Haid Wilmor C. WoIU with coNtH aa woll of tho Court 
lielow aN in thiH Court. (Hon. Sir h,'A.. Dorion, C. J., 
disHonting). / 

• Judgment rev«j|»od. 

L. R. Churrk, Q. C, attorney for apptdlant. 

S. Bethune, Q.C. and D. Maimatter, Q. C, for the liqui- 
datorH of the Ex<'hiinge Bauk, and oIho for Mr. Matttiae aud 
4he Merchants Bank. 

iV^. TT. 7V«i/ko/»i^4sr intervenant WoIIb. * 



i-3= 



J 



lUil l I |M 






/ * 



0^ 



-s^ 










-rp**" 



thn Raid Bxchtntr^ 



COURT OP QUREND nRN(^. 



A 



:{2l 



91 man 188S. 

I I; ^, 

Cimm Sir a. A. Doiuon, J.O., Monk, TfuwiKB, Okomh mul 

Bamy, JJ. 

lOUra UAYMONI) DiT LAjilUNKvSSK 

(DetfiaHtltntr m Com inferieure). 

AlM'Kr.ANT ; 

JO^EPTT LATRA VERSE 
' (Difenileur en Gmr inffirieure), 

IntimA. 

Fiiihe.t nrtichn—Ditmihiliti ili Vaveu—Rfinmite invrnineviblahh 
—Preuve eoHtraire—CirconntaHcea—Art. 1248 C. C. el 
' 281 a P. a 

Jrii*:— Quo \'»van d'niMt |>artio i|ul recttnnatt avoir ro^u iino nnmino 
il'iiivont rtiilmiiA) imr r«itl«>n, miiia qui |ir«t<uiil avoir n^vil In <liti» 
mmuw i titrn do don «t non A tilro do pri^t, jiout Hni il\\\nfi lorH<|ui< 
<vtf^ pn^litntlon iwratt tout A fait invnilmMnblal)I« en vuo ikw clr- 
> omHtantiw do |« oauHO et du caruct«^ra dm ptirtioH- Kt I'ttlinMou 
iiiHt«nu« dauR rtivou aiuHl dlviw^ |wut »or\'lr de coniflh'tKroinoiU do 
pHMivo par'<^<'rit, de m«inU\n» A (Mirinottra TlntroductUm <Io la prouvo 
U'Hthnonialo |iour <!«»iitrwliin la pr<''teiitioH invrdnewWabte do la 
partio intorroK^o, ot |)our ^tablir leit v^^rltahlot ein-onotentxM. 

Ippol d'un jugement de la Oonr Snp^rieure A Sorel, 
mndu lo 2 novembre 1881, renvoyaut Taction de I'appe- 

laut. 

' Les opinions des jugos do la Cour d'Appol oxpliqueront 
RQffisammimt les faits de la c&use, (it Iub questions do 
droit rtsolues. , ■ -■ ■ , 

' Baby, J. :—'"'■;' ■;•; ;,,...«.. ■": ■--■....,■' ' 

L'appelant pouTsuit rintimf pour uno sommo do 
♦4,022.08, composfee de 13,000 pour argent pr6t6, |88G.05 
pour le prix de meubles et effets mobiliers vendus, et 
1885.98 pour int6r6t sur le dit argent pr6t6. .f)'-" 

L'intim6 plaide qn'il a repn la dite somme de |8,000 e%, 
Ifs Jits effets mobiliera, mais que c'est A titro do dan qu'iP" 
leg a re9U8. 

VouLQ.a 21 



":*■ 



^ 



'. Aa 



p 



K 


].[ 


K it 1 








1 1 




i^i 


't 


1 '■; 


■ 


i i ■ 

14 1 


♦ 


•'!i 




' I 1 


A 


lii' 


1 


NU 


^J 






822 



montr|:al law refortb. 



i^l 






4'' 
\ 



m 



~\' 



J . : 



***». L'appelant, n'ayant pa« d'acte, ni de reconnaissance 

L^jeunene ^^jtg j^ ^^^ p^g^g gj avaiices k rintim6, a d-u s'eh-rap- 

utmerne. porter 4 I'aveu judicijiire de Tintimfi. Celni-ci, intewogfi 

sur faits et articleSra donn6 des rfeponses confbniies k son 

plaidoyer : il admet avoir re9u I'argent et les effets mais A 

titre'de don. '' \ 

^ Ija q:tle8tion qui so pr6sente est celle de \la divisibilite 

de I'aveu, La regie g^nfirale. est contenue\ dans I'article 

^ 1 243 du Code Civil :— " L'aveu est extra-judiWaire on jndi- 

" ciaire. II ne pent fetre divise contre celui qui le fait." 

Mais ily. a des exceptions^ cette regie gen6rakle. D'apres 

rarticle -231 du Code de Procedure Civile, " W rfepoiise 

" de la partie h une question " (sur faits et artifies) " pent 

" 6tre divis6e dans les cas suivants, ^'apres Ids circons- 

" tances et suivant la discretion du tribunal : 

, * 1. Lorsqu'elle contient des faits 6trangers k la contes- 

" tation li6e ; 

" ^. Lorsque la partie contest6e de la r6ponse est invrai- 
" semblable ou combattue par des indicei^ de dol ou de 
" mauvaise foi ou par une preuve contraire ; ' 

" 3. Lorsqu'il n'y a pas de connexit6 ou de liaison entre 
, " les faits mentionn^s dans la rfeponse. " 

C'est sur le 2eme paragraphe de I'article 231 que se base 
Tappelant. II pretend que la th6orie de Tintim^ quant 
au prfetendu don desr 13,000 et des eflTets eat -tout k fait 

> . ' invraisemblable d'apres les circonstances de la cause, et 
qu'eile est en outre combattue par une preuve contraire. 
Comme on I'a vu, Particle 23 1 C. P. C. laisse la question 
k la discretion du tribunal. La Cour de premiere instance, 
dans I'exercice de son pouvoir discrfitionnaire, a refuse de 
divider I'aveu dudefendeur, et a renvoyfi Taction. C'^t 
toujour^ avec beancoup d'h^sitation et de ri^pugnance qtie 
nous nous d6cidons a d^ranger un jugemei^t^sur une ques- 

^ tion ^'appreciation . comme celle-ci, mais lians I'espece 

f ' actuelle un examcn attentif de" toutes les circonstances 
nous amdne irrSsistiblement si une conclusion diffSreute 
de celle de la Cour Sup6rieure. Voyons quelles sont ces 
circonstances. 

. II est prouv6 que Tappelant est un vieux garfon 6co- 



^r^^^^mm 



v,"^ 



(X)UBT OF QUEENS BENCH. 



828 



rienx garfon Sco- 



■.-■ ■' , -. ^ ^!^:-/ , ^ ■ ■• V.;:. • .\ ;, ■ . ■ ■ . 

iiQItte eilkyt^e, tthi a I'habitnde de pfdter de I'argent k isu. 

int^Fdttsans prendre de re9n8 oa de reconnaissances qnel- UImii 

conques. Son avarice est notoire : on |ie I'a jamais vu i*t«»«nw. 

donner un son k personne. II a tine m6r^ qn'il fait vivre, 

et plusieurs fr^res, soeurs, neveux et niec^ panyres. > 

L'intim6 n*6tait li6 avec lui par aucune parents, ancnn 
. devoir rendu, ancnn^. relation d'amitiS avec lui on sa 
famille, et pourtant s'il. fallait croirc I'histoire racont^e 
par riotime, cet'^fitranger avafe et econome aurait un beau 
jour bffert de lui donner $8,000 pour acheter une terre 
quUl desirait, et k une secohde entrevue lui aurait actuelle- 
ment donn6 ce montant. II y a'CU, dit L'appelant, un 
paiement de $200 fait k compte de cette somme de $3,000 
;, qi^i 6tait pr^tfee k I'intim^, mais Tintim^ pretend qu'il a 
pT6t6 k l'appelant deux sommes de #100 dont ce dernier 
avait besoin. Pour juger de la vraisemblance de. cette 
histoire il sufiit de se rappeler que Tappelant 6st un 
homme riche qui prMe constamment son argent, tandis 
que rintim(§ est commis de vivres (steward) a bord d'un 
bateau a vapeur, avec un salairede $850 par ann6e. On 
voit que I'histoire de ce dernier est un v6ritable roman, et 
qu'elle^a/Jbien le caractere d'in vraisemblance pr6vu par 
l'art.281C. P. C. 

Mais il y a j>lus. Le dossier contient^nssi une preuve 
contraire. Le t^moiu Lachapelle dit que I'intim^ lui a 
d6clar6, dans le temps de I'acbat de la terre en question, 
qu'il empruntait I'argent de l'appelant k 6 pour cent, 

En presence de toutes ces circonstances no^ croyons 
quo la partie contest6e de la rdponse de rintim6 est tout 
a fait invraisemblable, et qu'elle est combattne par une 
pjciive contraire. Nous sommes done d'opinion que Taveu 
aurait du 6tre divis6 et -vTous infirmons en consequence le 
jugement de la Oour Sttp6rieure. 

MoNi^, J. : — ^ '• ' 

Je ne crois pas devoir difiSrer du jugement de cette 
Cour, mais je ne puis pas m'empAcber d'eicprimer la 
grahde difficult6 que j'6prouve k m'y joindre. La cause 
est vraiment extraordinaire etoffre touB les caractdres d'un 



u. 



>:Mf 



"\. 





824 




lAL LAW aBTOBTCl. 







i 



A- 



Imf'' 



.4" 



roman. Je partage tout k fait ropimon qui vient d'Wre 
exprim6e par mon honof^ble c^lldgrue quant k la nature 
invraisemblable de rhistoire rdcont|5e par I'intimd^et si la 
cause se pt^eutait 4 moi comme j uge de premiere instance 
je n'aurais aucune hfesitation k declarer I'aveu divisible, 
rfais ma difficultfi provient du fait que la question est 
laissee k la discretion du tribunal, et que la Cour Sup6- 
rieure a d6ji fjait cette appr6ciation. 

Tessier, J.:— 1 

La pr6sente cause est trds importante au point de vue 
du droit. La question de la divisibilite de I'aVeu n'est 
pas tout a fait la mdm'e da^b notre code et dans le Code 
Nttp6l6on. Au principe g6n6ral de I'indivisibilit^ de I'aveu 
contenu dans I'article 124S^ de notfe code, et dans Particle 
1356 du Code Napol§on, nos codificateurs ont ajout6 les 
exceptions mentionn6es a I'art. 231 de notre Code de Proce- 
dure Civile. II s'agit en cettg' cause de d6cider si I'aveu 
pent 6tre divisg en vertu des provisions de I'art. 231 C. P. C. 

Le defendeur, interrog6 quant auprdt quele demandeur 
pr6tend lui avoir fait, r6pond qu'il n'a jamais empmntfe, 
mais que I'argentlui a 6t6 donn6. Si le demandeur n'avait 
fait aiucune preuve ind6pendante il est probable que cet 
aveu serait indivisible. Mais dans le cas actuel il y a 
invraisemblance et preuve contraire, C'est ce qui- rend 
I'aveu divisible. etj)ermet au demakdeur de s'en servir eft 
guise de-commencementde preuve par £crit. Maintenant 
la preuve testimoniale faite en cette cause pour completer 
le commencement de preuvte r&sultant de I'aveu est-elle 
suffisante ? Nous croyons que oui, et nous renversons le 
jugement dquo. v 

Sm A. A. DoEioN, J.C. :—- 

II n'y a pas de question plus difficile k resoudre que 
celle de la divisibilit6 de I'aveu. Comme I'a expliqu6 
moA honorable collegue qui yient de parler,' le npuveau 
droit iranfais difiere de I'ancien su? ce point, et notre code 
contient des exceptions qu'on ne trouve pas dans le Code 
Napoleon. Dans I'espece actuelle nous divisons I'aveu 




OOUBT OF^EEira BENCH. 



826 



pour deux Jaisone. Premidrement parce que Thistoire du j- 
pr6tendu doll est tout k fait iiivraisemblable, et deuxieme- UNu*— 
ment par<[5e que deux tSmoins prouvent que I'argent n^a i«itw«"^ 
pas 6t6 dab*i6, mais qu*il a 6t6 pr6t6. Nous disons ceci h 
r%ard des |3,000 prAtfees, qar quant A I'^iutre r6clamation 
pour les effets mpbiliers vendus, nous ne trouvons aucune 
preuve ind6pendante de I'aveu, qui est en lui-m6me in- 
suffisant pour 6t4blir une vente de ces effets. 

Le jugement formel de la Gour d'Appel est dans les 
termes Buivants:— - 



1 

'-•-In. 



Coiisid^raiit que I'appelant rficlame par cette action, 
1. une sonSme de |3,000 pour argent prdt6 k l'intim6 ; 2. 
une soihme de 1886.05 pour le prix .^l meubles et effets 
mobilieijs vfendus et livrSs et|Mttiers avanc6s au dit 
intim6 ; Wt 8.*i^iie somme de iflHiNnr int6r6t sur les 
dites 8onimes^r6t6es— moins lasoSnie de $200 re9ue k 
compte , ' ^ * 

" Bt consid6rant que Tintimg interrog6 sous serment a 
admis qu'il avait re9U de I'appelant la som^e de $8,000 et 
les meubles et effetg mentionn^s en la declaration, mais 
en affirmant et soutenant que cette somme de deniers et 
ces effets mobiliers ne lui avaient pas 6t6 prfetfis, mais 
qu'ils lui avaient 6t6 do^nes par I'appelant ; 

",. *?*^^®^^^'^*^* V^^ ^^^ circonstances sous Tesquelles 
rintim6 pretend que cette somme de deniers et ces effets 
mobiliers lui ont 6t6 donn6s sont tellement invraisem- 
blables que I'appelant 6tait fond^ k prouver par tfimoins les 
circonstances dans lesquelles la somme et les effets dont 
le prix est r6clam6 par I'appelant ont 6t6 foumis et livrfe 
anditintim^; ^ * , 

" Et consid6rant que ttot par les j-fiponses du dit intim6 
que par la preuve teetimoniale produite en cette cause, 
I'appelant a 6tabli qu^il avait pr6t6 au dit intim6 la dite 
somme d« |8,000, mais qu'il n'a pas^prouvfi que cette somme 
ait fet6 i^dt6 k int6r6t, ni qu'il ait vendu du pr6t6 les^ 
meubles et eflfets dont il r6cla»^e le prix ; ^ = 

" Bt oonsid^rant que I'app^ant a le 4iwt' de recouvrer 
de l'intim6 la dite somme de |8,000 moins' eelle de #200 
qn'il a leoonnn ^ypir nyoa du dit illtim^ mau non orf fe^ 



yf 



3i26 



- , . ■..■.«#■■ 
MONTRlBAt LAW REFORT& 

Js-- ■ 



18W. de $886.05 'qYi'il .rfei^lame poilr le prix des meubles el effetK 
^»"«"« fournis et livrds ||t'inUin6 ; ^ . ' * . . ' * 

uijftver*. ' u Et c(Mi8;d6ram qu'il y a erreurdaps le jugement rendu 
■^ y par la Cou^ de premiere instance, k Sorel, dans le district 
J2% de Richelieu, le deoxidAio jour de novcmbre J881 ; - 

' " Cette Cour casad et annule, etc." '* 

',''.• Jugement renvers^. 

■ . •• ./^.jB. ffmiM«m«, pour I'apiMjlaiit.. ", 

A. Gagnim, pour I'intiA^. • v :* * ' " 

•* (E.L.) " , ■ ■ .■■•. ■■,■.■■■' 



■Mb 




1 . . 












- .i' ^^ Cornm Do^joR, J.C.koNKi, Ramsay, Cross, and Baby, JJ. 

" /% . L'HGN. ISIDORE; THIBAUDEAUB-fi^L., 

• ^ ' {^kmande^sm Com inf&rieure), 

■y^^""" •" V ■.. ;,. ■ ' ,-■ - ' -■ ^ ■: ■ ■ :-ly ^ .''. App»IANT8 ; 

' - - :/• ■ ''"' . \ ^ ;'BT ' *2-'> ■^ • ■ ' ' '• * . 

. ; . . •/■'r-'v^:'- ":' J. ,W. MILLS ter^ AL. ''■.; .' : . .vv 
h '' - '%{Pijendeurs en Cmtr infSrieure), 

-'■ ' : \ ..-'■■ IntiM^S. 

Vente—B^endk(Uionr—Privaige—FaiUUe—^nsdvabaU&-- 
' .... Livraison— Art, 199S, C: a- 

W-' . ■- .; ., ' .'■.':'" ^ .;■■'■■..: 

« Jon* :— lo. Que l«e( proviBions de I'a^icle 11)98 Q. C. limiUnt I'exenifra dn 

privilege fUi vendeUr aux qninz© jours qui suivent la vente dans les 
cas de faillife, afsppli^uent noii seulemeut au ca^ de faillite sous I'em- 
pire d'un ac^ d©. faillite, uiais" an cas d'insolva'biUt* spus le droit 
lommun, quatid iin commergant cesse sea paiemente (Art 17' J 23). 
2o. Que lorsiiue I'acheteur y; consent", le vendeHr qui est daP les condi- 

- . * tiojis vonlues ppur revendicjuer, pent se faire reniettre k I'amiable les 

marchuidises venAties, sans avoir besom de les fair© saisir par vole 

de'revendication. * f' 

' 3<x Que Pexpression " les qt^nze jours qui suivent ia vente " ti^nt le dit 

• s art 19})8, doit s'entond^ d^ la vente parfaite, et partant si les mar- 

>cKandiaei9«ont vendues au poids, au'compte on Ala inesui«,etnon 

en bloc (Art 1474, C, C), le d^lai pour revendiquer ncUomaiencm-a A 

coorir qt\6 du moment oA elles auront ^t^ pe8^/N»)mpt^ ou 

mesnr'^es. " , ■ ' ^v, 

Les faits de la cause sout suffisamment ^xpliqu6s 4aus 




i meubles et effetH 



ont reuvorsi. 



ss, and Baby, JJ. 




^xpliqa^s 4aus 



.\ 




OOtlBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



82t 



lesopiiiiohs sturantes." Xte jngement "de la-Oonr Sap6- 
■rionro est rapports an. ff Legal News, p.. 11*7. 



ins. 

ThibaadMn 

•t 
MilbttaL 



l.» 



, DoBiON, J. 0. :^ » \,\ ;. ' 

Cette action a St^rprise par les appelants poar le him^ - 
Jice commnn des ©r^anpiers d'ane sbci6t6 cotaimerciale qui^ \ 
existait k Montr^ ^ 1882! sous le nom de Ghapnt &° 
Masa^, et a pour but de faife amfuler u^e transaction 
eutre cette 8oei6t6 et les intim66. . , ^ . 

En juin 188^ Ohaput & Mass,6 rei9areni des intim^s an 
drdr.e pour des marchandises pour une>sQmme de |'|26.29, 
ces marchandises devanC dt^e livr^es pins tard, et 6tant 
payables h qnatre mois du ler optobre 1882. La livraison' 
.u'aeQslien qne le SI jnillet. Le 14 ao4t saiyant,° lorsqne . 
Ghi^nt & Mass6 dtaient insolvables, les intimi§8 ont eiii^ 
voy6 an de leafs oin|pl6y68 poar demander qae les mar- 
chandi^s aind livir^es Unr soient remises, et, comme 
tlhaput j&'Ma8s6 y consentaient,.elles ont 6t6 e&lev6es et-^ 
reprises vce jonr mdme par lea intim^. ° 

lies appelants demandent qtie ces nkarchandises on leiilr ' 
yalear soient reijaises parmi les siatres biens c^la 8oci6t6*' 
Chapnt & Mja8s6 poar le b^ni^fice.des br6anciei^. A. ^tte * 
aclion les intim^s I>laident qa'ils ontfenlemenV ex^ed le .^ 
privilege de revendication accorde an yendenr "nbn p«6 
par les articles 1998 et soiv^ts d^ Code Civil. ^ :■ . 

Les appelants r6pon4ent'^ae, Chapnt & lifassd 6tant euv' 
' t'aillite, les intim6s'n'6nt pas'a^i dans le d^lai present par . 
I'article 1998, qai se lit comme satt: ^iJe, vendenr d'ane' >/■ 
chose non pay6e pent exercer deax^ droits privilfegifes}, 
Ip. Celai de Tevendiqner Iaohos«|| 2o. Celui, d'etre piif§r6 
snr le poix. Dtms les au de faitiUe; ces droitis ne' penvent ■■ 
Mre «xerc§s qae. dans 1^ qninze jottrs qui saivent l|i% 
vente. " . • • „ 

La Coar inf^rieam a 6cart6 cette r^xwnse et a- d6cidd 
quo I'artiole 1998 n'est pas applicable aa cas actael, H-- 
teiida qae, rexpression "faillite'' diiniB cet article vent ' 
dira one faillite en verta .d'dn acte dQ fiullite, et qae, 
comme no^ n'avons pins d'acte de faillite depois 18*78, 
.Chapnt etmasafe n^ttaient qa'^wo^t>o6toif et partant le ven* 



V 



*i- 




Kl 



■J. 



f 



I - 









I 



'■^Kf^lJ 



<f<r« 



1 ' 



>t 



L.d.>-M 



?' 






.V 






I 



1.1'' 







*(S5S 



•, \ *' 



d28 



MONTREAL' LAW RBFORm 



188A. 

TbibaudMU 

et 
Mill* ot al. 



^T-". 




/" 






-i; 



. .-J 



deur tton pay6 6tait toiyours 4 temps pouf exercer son 
privilege. ' . 

Nous ue ooucourous pas dans cottp partio du jugutneut. 
Nous croyons, au contraire, que Chaputet Masse 6tiueut 
" en faillite " au sens de I'article 1998>,et que les intimC's 
otaientjgar conseqi^t teuus d'exercer leur privil6ge, soit 
de revendication 6u de pr6f6rence sur le prix dans les 
qi^ize jours deb vente. I^ terme " faillite " est d6fini 
parl^jvcto 17, § hMn Code Oivil, oqmme 6tant "r6tatd'un 
commerpant qui i cesse ses paiements," et nous croyous 
^ue le legisteur avait I'intention d'appliquer 4'article 1998 
^ tous les cas ou I'acheteur n'est pas en 6tat de rencontror 
8^8 paiements, soit qu'il ton^ibe sous' Tempire d'une loi de 
^aillite ou sous 4e droit comi^un. V 

Mais nous sommes d'^cctird avec la Oour inf6rieure 
quand elle dfecide que les intita6s ont agi dans le d61ai de 
quiuze jours 6tahji par I'art. 1998.- Dans le cas actuel il 
n*y avait aucune ri6ces8it6 de revendiquer les marchan- 
dises par une action, vu que I'acheteur consentait k les 
remettre voloutairement. II faut observer que dans les 
cas de faillite le droit de revendication doit $tre exerc6 
" dans les quinze jours qui suivent la vetUe," tandis que 
dans les cas ordinaires " la revendication doit 6tre exercee 
dans les huit jours rfe la tivraison" d'apr^s I'article 1999. 

Cette difference peut avoir des consequences t^pbr^ 
tantes, car depuis le 6ode la vente est parfaite sans la 
livraison parile seul ponsentement des parties ((|tj^72 
CO.). Dans cette cause les appelants pr6tendent qnv 
quoi^ue la liVr^ison n'ait eu lieu que le 81 juillet^^ 
Vente a 6t6 faite et parfaite au mois de jmn pr^cddent 
lorsque Chaput et Mas86 out accept6 rofiredes intimfis 
de leur vendre les marchandises en question. ^ Mais il y 
a une distinction f^ observer. II est vrai que depuis le 
code la vente-^QBt parfaite par le s^ul consentenlent des 
parfies, mais cette regie ne pent' s'appliquei- que lorsque 
Tobjet de la vente est d6termini§ et susceptible d'6tre 
identifi6. ^i Mills & Hutchison avaient vendu en bloc i 
Ohaput et Mass^ un lot ^e marchandises ddtermin6 la 
vente aurait 6te parfaite, mais s'ila leur avaient vendu nn 






J- 



•W.' "^."' 



\ . 



\ 



ponf exercer son 



, OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCSL ,.■ . gf^ 

certain nombre de verges de drap ou de boiies de coton, 
la vente -n'aurait 6t6 parfaite que lorsqne le nombre dq 
verges aurait 6t6 mpsurfe, oti le nombre de boites compt6 
et mis k part. C'est le cas pr6vu par I'articlo 14t4 du 
CoderOivil. , - -. ■ / ' • • 

Ici il n'y a pas eu 4'objot certain avant 'le 81 juillet, 
quand lee mart^handises ont 6t6 raises k part pour Ghapjit 
et Ma886 avant qu'elles leur aient et6 livr6es. 

Pour ces raisons nous croyons done que les intim^s ont 
exerc6 leur privil6ge dans les quince jour* qui 6nt suivi 
la vente et que le jugement 'de la Cour mf^rieure qui a 
reiivoy6 Taction des appelants, doit^Stre coniirm6 avec 
d^pens. ^ * 

Ramsay, J^;— ^ * # ' ' ' 

On the 10th June, 1882, a contract of sale \yas made 
between Chaput & Massd and respdudent, by which the 
latter undertook 'to sell certain merbhandize. tobe de- 
livered in the month of September, trom which time - 
Chaput & J4ass6 were to have four months to pay . 
therefor. On the Slst July or'lst August the goods were , 
actually delivered and taken infS the warehouse of Cha- 
put. & MassS and piled up there, and part of them 
marked, with their prices. They h^ undergone no other 
change-4hey were delivered unpacked; and it seems' 
there wad no difficulty as to their identification. On ihe 
i4th August, Ghaput *& Mass6 being unable to pay for 
them, they cancelled the sale and permitted respondents 
to take back the goods, which wa» done. The same ' 
day they called a meeting of their creditors and assigned. ' 
Mr. Mills was summoned^ to that meeting, but, he says, 
he did not actually kndw^ that Chaput & liass^ wete ' 
I insolvent when the.goods were given back.' 

Appellants contend that this transac&S^ took' place 

after Chaput & Mass^ became ipolvent and that the 

defendants were aware of it, and that it was a preferential 

payment prohibited by art. 1036, 0. C. 

Respoiidentfl aay thftt the sale w im nnn«l|ti^^ »iLl , f||^ ^ o. 



IIMA. 

Thibwid«m 
Mill* at •!. 



t 



! 



'i; 
i 



I 






V 



1 




[ 


1 


* 


1 


1 





■"^ T^ , 1f"^ »iT»<l ,^''°*"^(t. 




IMA. 

TblUudMU 

ot 
Mill! et al. 

/ 




/ 



»^.--■ 



* ^ 



•A 




'.t 



7> 



880 MONTg^L LAW BEI-OBTR 

livery by error, 'and that giving back goodi in this way 
to the unpaid vendor Ih not a payment at all within the 
meaning of art. 1086 O.C, and that the unpaid vendor 
can always demand the dissolution of the sale while 
goods are in the possessioii^of the vendor. The judge in 
the Court below held : 

" Que la dite transaction et la remise des ditos >ma^ 
chandises ont en lien dans les qninze jonrs de la yehte 
et livraison." V ^ I 

I don't think it is proved that the sale was conditional 
as regards delivery, or consent of Mr; Tranchemontaguu. It 
is proved that one of the defendants put a w^tning in 
the book that the bill due on the 18 July should be paid, 
and that the delivery clerk should speak to Mr^ Tranche- 
montagne before delivenug the new order, but Masai 
and ^haput were not privy to that memorandum, and 
therefore it did not affect the contract. On the contrary 
if it was fixed as a stipulation that goods were not to be 
delivered till September, why allude to the paymunt 
of the bill due' on the 18th July ? It appears then*that 
there was no obligation to deliver before September, but 
that is x}uite another ^thing. Again Tranchemontague's 
story^ is that they were to see Mr. Mills, but that s'tipula- 
tion ceased to bc"^ of any avail the instant the delivery 
Was satisfied by the irespondeutfii. It is idle to say the 
delivery clei^ was not authorized to execute his master's 
bargain. Such a delivery could not possiblylbe error. 

I cannot entirely agree Vvith the learned judge in all 
his oonsicUrants BB to art. 1998 0. C The Freiich version 
uses the word faillUeH is true, and , the^nglish version 
uses the word "insolvency." So we call it the insolveiU 
in English and in French Vacte defaillite. The articles, 

originally drafted for the avoidance of contracts, always 
of insolvency as a state existing independently of 
^e insolvent act; and it was con!;emplated, as far back as 
the 17 July 1861, that there shoiUd be rules for acomme^ 
cial insolvency, -i have a M. S. note of it. See in sup- 
port of this, art. 1088 0. 0. Again, if we turn, to art. 108?, 
it will b^ seen that tfie roles of the insolvant act oiAj 






,-*..f 



:• OOORT OP QUEENB BENCa. ; ^ • ^l 

[gave "IVirther preRnniptions ;" tlliat act disapimkvtng, tht) 
l(od<> romainod. , The whole case therefore tur^s on artv 
Lle8 1648 and 1998. ' 

|- The first lays down the gi^neral principle, the second ' 

I limits, it to 15, days from the sale. What does that mean? ^ 

I I am of opinion that the delivery hpre and the sale were- 
|oo-})val, that the re-deliyery took place within the fifteen 

yu of the sale, and the transactioii is therefore within 
I the terms of a^. 1998 G. C, and for this reaspn the judg- 
rmtfnt of the Gourt below should be confirmed. -— — 



inn: 

ThIlMuidwui 
MllU •('•I. 



,; 



Le jngement de la Gour d'Appol est dans les termes 
Isuivants: ' , ,, ,■■■.:,--■■■ ^^ • •-■ ^ ■■ .-^ > ■^■' 

" Gonsiddrant qu'il appert par ta pretive on cette canso - 
|qno dans le cours de juin 1882 les d^fendears Ghaput et 
jMasHc ont ddnu6 un ordre aux intim^s par I'entremise du* 
lommis de ces demiers poor des effets et mart^handises 
dont ils avaient besoin pour lenr commerce d'automne et 
d'h^ver, et qui devaient lenr Hre fournis et livr^s plus 
|tard; 

" Consid^rant que cet ordre n*a*6t6 ex^ut6 que vers lei 
jleraout 1882 par I'envoi & cette date des dits effets et 
Imarchandises; ^.* =^^' 

" Et consid6rant que juaqV^, cette dernidre date il n'y 

lavait on qa'une promesse de vente d'nne part et 'nne pro- 

messi^ d'acheter de TaUtre, ,et que la vente n'a 6\& c6m- 

pletee que lorsqne les marchandises ' ordonn^s ont 6t6 

I accept6es par les dits Ghaput et Mass6 par la remise qui 

|leur a 6t6 faite ledit jour, ler aout 1882 ; . -•" 

" Et considdrant que le 14 aout 1882 les dits Ghaput et 
jMBR)^°-^i avaient cess^ leurs paiements et 6taient en 
fiullite aux termes de I'article 17, paragraphe 28, du Gode 
Civil, ont remis aux intimds, qui connaissaient la faillitiB 
des dits Ghaput et^^Massd, les efi&ts et marchandises qui 
lent avaient 6t6 vendues et livrSes par les intim68 le ler 
aout pr6c6dent, lesquels effets et marchandises dtaient en- 
core dans lem6me 6tati que loTsqu'ils les avaient refus; 
F " Et oonsidgrant que cette remise a 6tk faite par les dits 
Ohapntet 'Manse pQur demenrer qnitte du prix dea dita 



X 



n 



: V. 

1 



>. 





.5- 



m 



MONTREAL LAW REroitTO. 




wKni 

ThIbkudMU 
Mill* at >l. 



;», , 




JMi 



flflflts flt niArohandiiAi qtif iiidi MkCiore dA on' onifer ntul 
intim68 ; 

"Bt conRid^rant qn'd I'dpoque oa r«tt« remim'a ^1 
#iite le« intim^H Staient uiK^oro dam lu d^lai de qniuie 
jours depuis la vente tlz6e par I'lrticlo 1098 da Co<le 
Civil, et daiiH Ion oonditiouR- roquimw par lea artitilea 1!)99 
et 2000 da Code (Uvil, poor exenur aur lutt dittt ofTotH et 
manhandisea le privilege do vond«iirk) non pay^a ; 

" Bt cohaid^raht qti'il n'a 6t6 ni all6gu6 ni iH-oov^ quel 
lorsque cea efl'eta et manihandiaea fl|Ot 6t6 retnis aaz inti- 
m6a ila valaieat plus'qae la.prix 4aquel ila avaieut ^16 
vendas, e,t que cette remise M'a pas 4^G faite avec Tin ton- 
tion de lapart des dits Chaput ot Maas^ do frender lenn 
autres cr^ancieni, mais bien de pr6vrair les frais qa'aa- 
rait Occasionn6 Texercice du privil^g^ qoe lea intim^ 
avaieut sar cea offeta et' marohandises poar Atre pay6 da 
prix qai leur en 6tait encore dii ; 

"Bt conHiderant que les appelants, comme cr6ancien 
dos dits Ohapat et Mass^ n'ont pas C*tabli qa'ils aient 
sonffert aucun prejudice de la remise qui a 6t6 faite dei 
dits ^Sets et marchandises aax intim^ ; 

" Bt considdrant qa'il n'y a pas erreur, etc., cette Conr, 
pour les raisons ci-dessos confirme, etc." 

^ Jngement confirme. 

Mercier, Beausoleil Sf Martineau, poar les Appelants. 
{ Abbott, Tail Sr Abbotts, poar les intimfe. 
(K. L.) 



i ru 



;! 






JL 



}^ 



'.•t 











m\fm OF QUBKWJ BBNCH. 



iM 






21 mars 1R86. 



\Qiratk SiB A. A. DoiiioN. J. C, RAMiAY, Tkh(iibk, Crohd 
V et Baby, JJ. 

|lEH OURfi BT MARGIIILUKRa DE L'fRUVRR ET 
FABRIQUE DB LA PAROISSE, DE 3TE-ANNE 
DE VARENNES, ^ - ■.. 

(tkmarukiirs en Cour in/erieure,) 

Appkiants, 



-*s — 



5 



ir, etc., cette Conr, 



PHILIAS OHOQUET, 

(D^fmdmren^winfifiewre,) 

' Intime. 

FiArique — Automation A pownuiwe — App4 — Procidufe. 

)i(itf— (Sir A. A. Dorion, J. C, ot Crow, J., dilWrant)*- 
lla Quo lo bnrean ordinaire d'une fabriqne peut autojimr de8 pourfinitofl 
|)our le rtHMuvrement dea revenus oniinairoa de|lA fabriqne ot |K)iir 
i'dhtention d'lin titre nnuvel. , | 

llin. Qiie cetto aiitoriHatioii n'a pas boaoin d'etre sp^iijlo ; maia qu'imo an- 
torisation g^n6rale'de prendre dea prooM^ K^imix contra coiix qui 
Bont endett^^ envors la fabriqiio, sans Bp<V;lfier le noin $lo chaquo i\6- 
bitear, eat auflfiaante. 
Ka. Que le ddfaot d'autoriaation pour appeler danaybne action de on genro 
no ))eut paa £tre invoqu^ |)our la premit^re foii^& I'audition de la cuuso 
ei» appel, (jiiand H n'a paa ^i^ invmiu^^ dans fe cours de la« pnx'^^dure 
et (|uo"lea proctireurs <le I'appdAnt n'ont jJa M: mia en demeure de 
prtHluire leur autorisation. (SembU', la qii6 I'apiwl en tellos matit^res 
dovraitdtre autoris^ d'une manidre toutauaai furmejtle quo Taction 
on proiiaittre inatanoe ; 2o. quo le bureau ordinaiw.jie^ la fabriqoe 
pourrait donner I'autoriaation requise mur eet ai^l). 

Appel d'un jugement de la Colfcr de R6 vision infinnant 
Inn jugement de la Qovu^w^nfgafQ k MoutrcaU qui avait 
Imaintenn Taction des appelant 

|SiE A. A. DoBioN, J. 0. (diss.)/— 

Le» appelants ponrsaivem I'intim^ commo tien-d6ten- 
|tear d'un immenble affecl;<g en lear favenr d'nne rente 
ititu^e attiinelle de |8^ar aun6e. 



if- 













,r 



■Hi 









f)f u 



u 
%rh 






*^ 



t 









MONTRRAL LAW RErORTB. 



f s 



/ 

i 



•t 

CImiwI, 



.V 



■■«. 



Plir tin amondoment h hmr d^Uratlon, pimnU par iinl 
'iuvlnnnw" .^^l?*'!"*^"^ iatt*rlo<!utoir«\ Um appoUiiU alUgutuit qu'ili 
out rei|ui8 i'iniim'^' (le l«ur fouriiir un titni nouvul (l«>U 
dHk rentu cuiiNtitu^!() ; co que rintitn^ nurait n^tiXH(i d«l 
» faire ;> quu par i^u rofuH rintiiii^ a mil cu danger Ion gi' 
raolioH (lMt> app«>liuitit, ot uti t-oiiNAquoiUut ils dotiiandi>i)t ^ 
(M quu lt> capital du la dite rtuitu Noit d^;clar£ oxigiltlf m 
inline Uimpa qu'ano aiiu^e d'arr^raguB ^chuu h r6i)«K|u>> j 
do (;otto action.' Ltw ooiicJuHioiiH Hout rt^lltiB d'ttoe uttjoil 
* hy|)oth6caire. 

^ L'intimfi a oppooA k <^«>tto action pno Hn de non-re<!flvoiT, 

tinn dcl'uuNc ou droit ii pariiu dua. coitciuaions ui au» # | 
fciiHo an fond. 

lo. Par la fin de nou rooevoir I'intiin^ ■« plaint du inau- 1 
quo d'autoriMtion des nppolantH i\ i)ortcr la pr^entit ui- 
tioii, parce quo notie a(;tioii uxt^Mo Ion acttm de ttiinplel 
adiniiUHtratioii otquo Ioh marguilliors ont pour ano pou^[ 
Huito do (;o genre boBoiu do I'autoriHation dos paroiMoipiiH ; 
et parce quo, mfimo si I'autoriNation doa marguilliorH suf- 
fisait, coUo produite par Ioh appolantH ue s'fitend pat* jui- 
qu'ili permottre la pr^seute poursnito. 

2o. Par la d6feuHe on droit rintim6 domando lo renvoi 
do cotte partio des conolusioils qui domando lo paiomuut , 
du capital de la rente, et k d6l'aut par lui de ce fairo, le j 
d{^lai88emont de ripimeublo. \. 

80. Par aa defense au fond 1 intim6 alldgne qu'A i6-| 
poquo ou Taction lui a et6 signifi^K) il n'etait plus lo pro- 
pri6taire de I'immouble en quoHtion, I'ayaut vonduikaD 
tiers quelquos joura auparavant. A cette dornidro dotouw 
los appelauts r6pondent^que Tacte do vente n'ayaut ^te 
enrogistr^ que quatro jours aprds la signification do Tac- 
tion, cette vente est sans effet k lour %ard ; et quo de 
fait Tintim6 6tait encore en ]>08session de Timmouble 
quand Taction a 6t6 signifiee. Oomme la rSponse des ap- 
pelauts est bien fond6e en fait, nous n'avona pas bosoin 
de nous occuper pins longtemps du troisieme plaidoyer 
_^de Tintim6. 

La difficult^ se presente fLj'6gard de la fin de non 19»\ 
voir et do la defense en drpit. 



. )' 






^ 



OOIJBT OF QUEENV BCNCB. 



Sii 



liniiiumbl« hypothtqu/^ k la rmU^, nt «oudiMim« I'lntim^^. 'tJvl^.ntSt'^ 
id/tUiMi^r. t\ moiniqu'il no prf-n^n- pnyor Ion «rrtTa|f.'« ch.:',^*. 
di'iK, <!*«it-A-dir»i |8.00, «t ♦ioimentir A paMMur uii titroiiuuvnl 
-»!o qu'il mira toiia d'oj)t«r datiN uii d^lal dn 16 Jourii, fit A ' i 
(1^ dftlfti paMH^, |« drfoiidour »Mt coadainhM puromont «t * 




la fin de npn ivoe*] 



Kimpleiiu'ut Ru pajoiiunit de In umit) «•» aux d6|M<nB 

l/autorisation produit« par Iom ap|H^laiitM a 6t6 doiiti^o 
(liiiiH uii« liMHumbl^o dm marguillitirn auoiwiyi «t ttout 
ttMiuM le 26 janvior t8H(). A mtU^ a«H«inbl6d; F. 
chtwiii, mttrguilli«r «H)mptabl«, a bt^ autorii^ "di 
" den pmu'idiw I6gaux contui »rimx qui sont cndottdl 
"h dite oBUvre «t fabriqiin, d« coutinuor I«h „ 
" iirttwllemi'tit intont6<'» odntnl (wtains dfibitcmra i»t 
" ployor uii avocat dans toutos raniiuN oil Ut mimHtiro d'un 
" avorat sera ntquiH." ,€ 

A r^puqae ae «:((tto rlinolntion la Hommo do |n kclamAe 
par la pr68«uili) action comme arri'ragos d^ cdustitat nVtait 
paH t'ncoro ducr ;■:■_ . W"- ■ •!*>' 

L'autorisati^n ri-de88nB inunti6nu6u ^ 6t6 jug6fl snffi- 
iiant«> par la Cour Sup6rioure. La Cour do Revision a 
inlirrafe ce jagemont pour le motif que les inarguilliors uo 
pouvaient intouter lo pr^tsent proods quo sur uueautorisa- 
tioQ dans ot par uno assembl^e duemtmt uouvoqu6e do tous 
les fubriciens et paroissiens de la paroisso do Varonnos. 

Nous croyons tous que la Cour de Revision a faiterreur 
en Cnonpant ce principe, qiui n'est pas conforme aux auto- 
ritf'H sur cetto matidro. Mais sur la question do savoir si 
I'autorisation dpit 6tre pp6ciale je no puis me ranger k 
I'opinion de la majorit6 de mes collAguos. Le siyet est 
exposfe d'une manidre tris claire par Holland de Villargues 
.(RCpurtoire, vo. Fabrique). D'aprds lui et leA auteurs 
qu'il cite il me parait etabli que Tautorisation doit Ati'e 
sp^ciale et ne pent pas s'^tendre k des proces diffllrents ou 
ultfcrieurs, mais seulement k oeux qui sont mentionn6s et 
compris dans I'autorisation. Oette restriction avait pour 
but d'empdeher les fabnques de se lancer dans des pour- 
suitos ruinenses ou inutiles. II y a mdmiriihe ordonnance 
q9i defend formellement aux avocats de prendre des pro- 



m 



■<fei' 






'■,■1' 



;:^y\ 




# 



■it 



■ 'V, 



■■-? 



•*■'■ ' 






III 


,t' 


;l 


sit 


t 


. t 






4 


Hi 


' 1 - 1 



.886 



MONTREAL LAW REPORT& 



i: 



III ' 



.»l. 



f)! 'j 



'^5i 






4 ; 
'If 



nv 



"*• c6d68 pour une fabcique aattt 6tre munis pr^alablemcnt 

de varennoi* ^6 rautorisation Tequise. ' Et 1^ d^faut d'autonsatiou pent 

Ch(^.iet. 6tre invoqu6 sans a;^'oi^ 6te plaid6. La prfisente action 

otfre, d'ailleurs, I'exemple. d'une poursuite tant soit peu 

extraordinaire, qui meritait oertainement une autorisa^iou 
speoiale. Car on exige du defeudeur le capital d'une fente 
, • constituee parce qu'il'a reiu86 d6 passer un titre nouvel. 

C'est la premiefe fois de ma vie que je trotive une pr6teu- 
tion pareille. Et le jagement de la Cour Sup6rieure con. 
damne le d6fendeur k passer titre nouvel, ce qui est ullra 
_• : ^ petita, attendu que les conclusions de Taction demandaieut, 
' P9^ pas que le defendeur fut condamne k passer titre 

t-nouvel, mais qu'il fut coudamn^ a payer le capital de la 
y _ rente pour avoir refuse de le faire. 81 le demandeur desi- 

rait obtenir un titre nouvel il aurait du le demander dans 
la forme habituelle iudiquee par Pigeau, c'est-^-dire, coii- 
clttre a ce que le defendeur fut condamne a pAsser titre 
nouvel, et qu'a defaut de ce faire, le jugement tint lieu 
de titre nouvel. . . , 

Sans done adopter tons les motifs du jugement de la 
^ Cour de Revision j6^ suis d'opinion que le dispositif en est 

• satisfaisant et devrait 6tre confirme, et que Taction des 

appelants devrait Stre reofvoyee. ' 

Ramsay, J.: — * 

.. " This case gives rise to a question of some importance as 

regards the regularity of legal proceedings by an ecclesias- 
tical community. «j 

Respondent on the 25th Jan. 1880 was charged with an 
annual rent in favour of the appellant of $3 a year con- 
stituted on a capital of 300 francs. At that time no arrears 
were due, but by ap amendment to the declaration, appel- 
lants were permitted to demand of respondent a /i/re nouvel 
or payment of the capital in default of acquiescence in the 
demand to furnish a. titre nouvel. To the action so amended 
respondent pleaded that the appellants had no authority 
V ^ to bring the action — 1st. Because it was an action beyond 
acts of simple adminjstra.tion and required the authorisat, 
. tion of the parishioners— 2nd. That if an authorisationby 










CX)URT OF QUEENIS BENCH 



387 



It^S. 



ot 
Chuquet. 



the CKfrf and marguUliers is sufficient to entitle the procmeur 

to institute an action of that sort, the alleged authorisa- if«?""«.H«.v 

tiondoes not convey the authority required. 

With regard to th6 first reason it seems to; .^ decidg^ 
by art. 24 of the Arrdt de St. Jean en Qtj^ve that' the 
bureau ordinaire may institute proceedings 'pour faire passer 
des tUres nouveaux. Guyot, R6pertoire, vo, ! Fabriquie. A: 
similar disposition is to be found in the RSglementrdu M 
mai 1746, pour la fabrique de Montfermeilr art. IX Au- 
cien D6nisart,vo. Marguilliers. And in his vjrprk " Cdde des 
Cures," Mr. Justice Beaudry says : **Au bureau ordinaire de 
la fabrique appartient le droit **#**: 3o. D'autor 
riser les poursuites pour le recouvrement des revenus 
ordinaires de la fabrique, I'execution des baux et I'obten- 
tion de titre nouvel," p. 221. This seems to embrace the 
principal ground of the present action. 

As t(r the second point, the authorisation on which 
the action was brought is in these words— K>ne Beauchemin, 
marguillier comptable, is authorized " de prendre des pro- 
c6d68 I6gaux contre ceux qui sont endett6s envers la dite 
oBuvre et fabrique, de continuer les actions actuellement 
intent6es contre certains d6biteurs et d'employer uu 
avocat dans toutes causes ou le ministere d'un arocat 
sera requis." 

Is this an authorisation to sue respondent for titre now 
\^^ Two objections are mad&—l. that the party to be 
sued is not named ; 2. that this is not a debt. 

I have been unable to find any authority among the 
old writers which goes to show that an administrative 
order of this sort authorising the procureur of the fabrique 
to sue all debtors is insufficient, or that it is necessary" to 
ifetail the name of the debtor and the amount he owes.^ 
It will scarcely be maintained that this authorization 
would not bind the /fl(6n^. 

A debt is what is due, even damages for a dilit, not only 
a defiti^e sum of money that is due. This has never been 
jnestioned. Dig. de Verb, signif. 1. 108, de reg. jur. 66. 
PMhyr, Obi. 180. It is go used in the 0. N., see specially 



. I 



TV 



13 



Vou L Q.B. 



'* 
*> 



I 

I i 4 



m 






i 



>l. 



v*Si 






15 



^c^i 



/ MONTREAL LAW BEP0RT8. . 

"^ »rticl^ llSS^d. 1190-1. It is also used jn this sense in 
d?v«wMw' ««r code in art. 1093, and in many others! I think, there- 
CboquAt, fore; that the action is within the terms of the authoriza- 
• tioii. 

Two questions remain, could the appeal be instituted 
without a renewal of the authorization, and would an 
..anthomation t6 appeal Be sufficient by the ordinary ad- 
ministrators ? liWith regard to the latter question, I see 
no special limiteiition to the authority of the bureau ordi' 
naire, to sue for a litre nouvef, and having authority to sue, 
, ' , it can curtaiiUy tiiake all the proceedings the l|^w allows, 
and appeal is one of thtfilFi. 
- ■ ' The other question is liiore difficult. Appeal is a new 

. ', iuftance, and requires a lam authorization. I don't think 
_ ^ the neW authorization caA be less formal than the original 
one. ■ But can the question be taken up by the court, 
. without being raised in an V way ? ' 

I think not, and I am thei^efore to reverse, This is the 
opinion of the majority of tli^ court. '' '^1 

-No question waw^ raised on this appeal as to the form of 
the conclusions df the action, and my ajUention i^ drawn 
to it now for the first time. There can be no doubt thaf 
the conclusion of an action for a titre noui^l isfliat the de- 
fendant should either take out the new title or that the 
judgment should stand for It, and not that he should be 
evinced. But it is to be remarked that the judgment ap-' 
pealed from does not grant that faulty conclusion of the 
action. ^jf^jj^ a 

Voici le jugement formel de la Cour d'Appel : — ' * 

"LaCour 

" Gonsid^rant que le bureau ordinaire de la fabriqne 
I>ent autoriser des poursuites pour le recouvrement des 
revenns ordinaires de la fabriqne et pour Tobtention dd 
titre nouvel: 

!' Gonsiddrant qu'il h'esl' pas nScessaire que Tantorisa- 

tion soit'sp^ciale, mais qu'nne autorisation g^ngfaje de 

. , prendre des procMes 16gaux contre ceux qui sont en- 

dett6B envers roBUvre et fabrique, sans 8i)6cifiei: le nom 



!•! 



de chaque d6bifeur, est sultisante ; 



"ST 

.4 



■5 % 



,- ."% . 



'%,. 



I t 



OOUBT OF QUEEiro BENCH. 



889 



1880. 



" Oonsid^rant qite le d6faat d'aatorisation pour appHler 
do^jugement de la Cour de premidre instance n'a pas 6t6 ^v»Mii!J5r 
inroquS au cours de la procedure, et partant que les pro-. cb<^„eu .^ 
careur^ dfes appelants n'ont pas §t6 mis en demeure de 
produir^ lenr antorisation ; - 

" Considerant que dans le jugement dont esit appel, 
savoir, le jugement rendu par la Cour Sup^rieure si6- 
geant en revision k Montreal, le 9 juillet 1883, il y a ^freur, 
renverse le dit jugement, et-proc6dant 4 rendre le jnge- -fe 
ment que la dite GourSupSri^re si6^ant en revision ^ 

aurait di& rehdre, confirme quant k son dispositif le juge- 
ment rendu, en cette cause par la Cour Sup^rieure si6- 
geant en premiere instance a Montreal^ le 16 fulii 1888, 
avec d^pens, etc." 

Jugement de k Cour de R6vi8ion'W&ritt§.- 
Mousseau; ArchambauU Sc LttfoiUaine, pour les ap^lants. 
Geoffrion, Binfret 8c Dorion, pour I'intimfi. f^ 

(B.L.) 






'I 













' 


> ■ ' ■ " ." "i " 




-*• —•~-. - 












"' 








,,.'. .■'. ' v-^ • '; ;>i . 


■ 


* • ^ 


■~->^ 




1 








V 






I . - . ■ 


4 




Ti 


■ .*-..■■ 




V 


«' 




M 


i' 


f. 










:«■: 










■« ■ ';■'■'.'•. 














,' 










1 ' 


■* 












■> 


-ft 






® - 














" . 






■■■a "/' 
















^d, 




^ 




■ ■ ■ -?/ 






li 










nU> 


'■ _ ' ' 






i >■ 


?^i>t ■ 




r 










V 




• 

f 

* 




■ - ♦ 








^ \ 


y ■ -.1 ,.'*'^ 








■ * -. . 


• 


.' i ''- 


, ' .» ■'" 


. _ , 


■ ,■; ■ . 


1 


\ 


,v 












' "u" 


>■ 






^ * 


* 


: 'H. ,-. ■ 










V 




.- '■■■ 


7":;%. 




« M 


.A 


■ ■ -y ■ 






\ 




. • 


■' 


■ • ■ 




^ ;:' 


X ^ 


' 


- \^ 








. 'v ^ 




1 ti ■ 




.. 1 ■ ■ 




•) ^ lU 




■\ 




















''1 


• 


■A 














■• » 


.;.,.';-\ 




1 






\_ 


- 




" , "' 






'' '^ 


- ' ■ 






^ 








\ 


p " 












f 


- 


\ 


\ 




• 




Sjd 


fc . " 




tmm. 


iv 1 



if- 
i ■ 



t t 

I- 
I 

! ' 
f 






y:^«^ik \ 



T' 



■■» 



'M> 



I . / 



840 



M^NTBEAL LAW BePOBTS. 



. "^ **:, May 21,1886. 

Coram Monk, Ramsay, Tesbibb, Cbosb and Hrj^y, JJ. 

^ G. C. ARLESS • * - „ 

.'(Respondent iH Court beltnv), 

i ' ^ ^' ApPELLANTii 

"■ ■ . • ■- ■ . AND , > ,: 



THE BELMONT MANUFACTURING CO. 
{Plaintiffs in Court below), ■<{ 



^ V AND 



■^ 



SAMUEL C. FATT, ESh-QDAL. • . ^ 

•>i4 / (FUoMt^ par reprise d' instance), 

^ Respondent. 






^nt Stock Copi/Miny— 31 JTii;^. (Q). c. 25 — Subsmber before 
indorjMation — Agreent^t to take Stock-^Non-litibUittf. 

The appellant signed an undertaking to take stock in a company to be 
incorponfed by Letters Patent under Q. 31 Vict c. 25, but was not 
a petitioner for the Letters Patent, no| was hia liaind inclid«i^ in the 
list (rf* intending shareholders in the schedule sent to the Provincial 
<4n3ecietary with the petition. The appellant's name was not mention^ 
' in the Letters Patent incorporating the> company, nor did he beccone 
a shareholder at any tim^ after its incorporation. 

Held :— (revet8in|[ the judgment of the S.C., Cross, J. dissenting)— 

Ist That the appellant nevtir became :». shareholder of the company, and 
could not be held for calls on stock. 

2nd. The Union Navigation Co. <t CotifiiardC) and4ia^cony A- the tame Co.(') 
followed and apptoved. McDtmgaU et al. & the aame Co. (') distill 
guished. "^ 

3id. (Per TaasisR, J.)— That a subscription to stock in a of^mpi^y to be 
M incorporated is a mere proposition ami not a binding promiiie to, take 
-■>■ and pay. \J 

4th. (Pet Bambay, J.>~That under the terOis of the Statute 31 Vfct., Q. 
cap. 25, the only penons who aie Bhaj«hold9f« in a company incoi^ 
porated thereundec,are those nftmed'in the Letters-Patent ;ju isucb, 
and those who become members after incorporation. 



C^H?*^g>^*«^^iJ-^C^-71 C)^ T., W 4, M ftnd 84 L C' t T 1!B ^ 



.r ' 1 * " 



X 



**' J, •* . 
,.. '-it " 



%' 



%i\ 



• .• 






» - / 



rs. 



May 21, 1885. 
$ and ISt/by, JJ. 

I 

below) t 

V 
ApPELLANTii 



RING eo. 



Respondent. 

— Subsariber before 
'—Non-litibU^if. 

: in a company to be 

ict c. 25, but was not 

I njitad inclid«(^ in the 

sent to the Provincial 

ime was not mention^ 

ly, nor did he beccone 

m. 

J. dissenting) — 

r of the company, and 

(i^conjf «fr the tame Co. (') 
the Mme Co. (') distin- 

L in a of^mpi^ly to be 
inding promiiie to, take 



vIct., (I 



le Statute 31 

I in a company inca|» 

etten-Patent JM 'such, 

ation. 



:1 ■ ,,''>^y' 


V' 


IX 






%;'{_ 




* ' 



OOmiT OP QtrfiBlTB Bl^Nqil. . 841 

Al^eal ftoin a jtidgkncrnt ]rend«l«ict by the Stiperior 



vm. 



h 



fk>iirt at Montreal, (ToiiEANCE,j.) on $pth January, 1884. ' ^^ 

. , ■■ :.■■■ >-\ ■ ■•-■.:;:'. ■ '■:^' .' Bdtpont Mm*- 

CiM)SS,J. (<lws.):-— ; V >., . 

The Belmont Manhfactnri^^ Co., an aasociation organ- ' 
ized under the Joint "Stock Companies' Act (Q.' 81 Vict. ^ ' 
cap. 25); bring an action against Arless as a subscriber foir ' ^ 

one share in' the stock of that company for. the recovery 
: f)i^alls made on the stock. ' g '''''•■'-:■■'''' '-c]^ /,• 

The company was put in liquidation after the institu- 
tion of the action, and the instance ^or the company was *~ 
taken up by Fatt, J;he assignee, now respondent, upon \^ 
which Arless pleaded to the eflfect that he never subscribed " 
for any share in the capital 'stock and never becam^ a . 
shareholder in the comply ; that he had subscribed for 
stock in a company to |ie forced long previous to the daf^ 
olf the charter of the comply in question and never took 
part in its proceedings. By a IBecond plea he al^ged 
that misrepresentation and fra^ud hadl^ett jyractised to 
obtain his signature. '^ "^ 

The respondent ptc^uced a certificatcf in conformity to 
section- 19 of the Statute of Quebec, 31 Vict., cap. 24, to \ ^ 
establish the fact of Arless being a h^der of one share of < ^ 
the stock of the company, oil which the calls had be^ 
regularlV made, and that the amount sued for was 'due 
, and ^nmiid on said calls. 

ThQ company had been originally incorporated ^under \ 

the nameldf The Lipiwlor ^anufacturing^o., bnt'lS||^J[>een "- 
changed to The Belmont Man'nfaoturing Oo., by the 
Statute of Quebec, 45 Vict. cap. t5, sanctioned 1st Majl 
1882. " . . . . V - i 

Arless produced a list of shar§hoIdeiis ' 6t, the Lawt<>ir 
Manufacturing- Gq., dated 80th November, 1888, certified ■ 
by the Assistant Provincial Secretary, purj^rthig to have . 
I' been deposited in the Provincial Secretary's office, together 
with a notice of the applidation of that company for in-' 
corporation, in neithfyr of which ^documeits was Arless 
mentioned as f shareholder. * . ' ] ^ 

Arless in his examination as a 'witness acunits that be 



^ 



a" 



\f 



I- I 



-' "S 



n 




Belmont Manu- 








ftr 



H V. 



[MONTREAL LAW RBF0|^T8. 



sabwsribed^tjfor one 3We In tl^NiawloT Manufaetarini 



^''•" Co., pd Ihii he had been notifiyi to pay calls thereon, 
UotarhiK^'!' "^n dooii:^igAit which h|yBabM||bed is proved, an 



nit 



as follows :-ti^^^ab8cripti(^B forte oapitaJ s^k ^the 
^1 Ik^lot Mili^turi% Oompwf ; Capi^, j^ hiillprf 
^' thb^SMid d#ars (|100,006). ifeyeal," " ' 



meet h^rebf airree to4i^^^jiid th< 
sublcribe to. the nnm|l^r;^;«harei 

sp€K5tiye^patVeU .- 
alli>tt^ >y th^ |foa 
" litionW^itSai 




eby do 



§p:0,coni|: 



l^^^atthe 



rl^ to pay the ealli^ 
iiobsmbed, «nd for whk 
als fr«m that jndgn^n^ 
of BammySc The Uni 
ixA^PkumN<m^(dim(^^ jf Cou&lafd.{^ 
ihM i^re^^as no acceptance of hiB^fiitibf'^ 
ky allltipf^t |6 Ifiitf of a share. I $hdtil| ^ 
M upon hiiiai to. p$y before, anything wahi 
iSm t# withdraw hig' sljaibscription was,, ini all 
j^qn^fvaleAt to cl^ing^^^nsafttion and making 'I 
^ ^Q (bargain bc^^eeig^'^JlHpQt^^^^ cowpanjr. ] 

^t' of shores ia^ ;» fbr^aaiiiljr sddom'o|' never 1 
; resoi^t^ to heire, Shares Applied' lot or snbsmbed rarely 
^|^c0e|hthe<!i|iprtU sought bejaised, ^and in plaqe of tht* ;; 
::s V ffllstonia,!^- form plractised in mgloiid of the intending- ;| 
shai^hol^er s^ndipg an i^ applicatiofi to have 'sharaSv 
,^11^^ to bim> the practice is f€tr the promoters of th^; 
idbi^plll^ ta solicit subscriptions to the stock, and Cor the: 
SubBcriil^r£r to sign an undertaking to take shares.^ A 
s^nififr practice! prevails in the United States,' and there 
sucl^an undertaking is held binding, in favour of the' 
company when they become incol^i:^^^ and ciU /or its^ 
fiil^nieni See Angfill Sf Ames on >CJt>rp^ations^ §$ 628 andj 
524; dtso/Abbott's Digest jttCorporation Gases, Vo. 
scripti^n," p. 801,'^ VI^H|. 1$24169. This is 
reasonable; the promise Wl!i!ke shares^d.1^ a sul 

'(') 7L.N.5W»)24L.C.J.'133. (»021KCJ. 71, - 



1 V. 



Iv 



» / 



M. 




ance of fafiifi ^nb^'' 




■ ' \\ . ' ' ' '-■,-■■■ • 

OQViLT or Qrt^Nna BiNcH. 



B48 



i»> . 



U9B- 



li^Dains' tmrevoked and not withdrawn 

lecomes incorporated and accepts the *']f" 

^;|^M«ent thereto, an it effectually does ^•iSl«in1lc<!!' 

^^ttd potifying the parties who have 

es. "By our Provincial [Statutes there 

mui be ■a'certaii^iippoT'tion of shareholders bottiid before 

"^ company ciui^lcome incorporated. Subscribers """ 



ib8cnl|io4.fo 



Wifain^|J^fc|||W«36selVe8 to the company after it has ,be- 
htipd. There i^' no gopd reason whyvthey 
'when the application for incorpor 
. ,pr6»M88;ptin^8 names would neither 

appear in' the charter nor in the application. It cann) 
then be the mer6 fact of the names o( prior subscriber 
being handed^t to the Secretary's office which makes 
thejm liable. It is their promise which makes them liable 
jjid which becomes absolutely binding on both parties as 
;^!lobn as it is jiccepted. . It is said that thieir, non-return to 
the Secretary implies an abandonment of their subsciip- 
Uioh by the promoters of the company. I think it cant . 
Uinply no more than a suspension of the acceptance of the 
promise, if eyen that acceptance is necessary, which per- 
.haps is doubtful. It may be readily understood why in 
England a preliminary subscription may be held to be a 
mere proposal to take stock. Besides the formality of 
• allotment practised there, other formalities are required, 

among which are signing articles of a|^oc^|on. 
I • I have examined the prpof made in the cases of CowtZ/ard 
|i > and Bgisamy against the Union Navigation Gompaiiy {sup. 
cU.), and I find tibat although they Were shown to have 
subscribed^ neitifer was apy signature proved nor any 
form of undertaking or writings produced or proved to . 

which they had agreed. The 'f^^«J^i^«'' '^ifcS^^^^ 
,with thSpresent. I hold with Jj^^W^ of tP^t^ior 
Jourt ttii^t the question is si^^If whether av<|>ntifl|Dtf%to 
J;ake Stock has bee^ proved^*! am of ojiimon it has be6n\^ 
proved, «id I would confirm the judgment. . ^ 'JH 

* ' " - 

Le dfefendeur est-il teAu par la pr6tendue souscrii^olL .^ 




1 













=w^ 



"»*51 






'^ 



¥ 






i 



Hi 



I- 



uonrtt^Ki^ £aw tiEFo»ra» 



m- 



'?* 



m^ 



1 

f 

i' 

if; 


1 




i 


cis 


■U 

si 








f 

I. 


* 
1 1 
1 


?. 


1 


H 


fii 




} 1, 






. 





\ 



«*• d'une part de cent 'piiMiren pr6cMemment k I'incorpora- 

L, ^ ****"'**® CQtte compagnie ? Il.pr^tendn'Atre pas tenu pjinu*- 

i««turinc.C6. quM na P98 ete mclus parmi ceux qni out demancl6 

I'incoiporaMoif, nr parmi ceui qui sont nomm^s dans lea 

Ittttres-patentes, ni m^me dans la liste dus Bonscripteuro 

ou actionnaires tjansmiso an gouvernement pour obtenir 

ces lettres-patentes. Ce^ prfetentions s'accordent avec la 

preuve. Le d6fendeur Arless n'a particip6 i aucune assem- 

bl6eo^ aaissement de la corapagnie, qui aVauite changi- 

^Tf^ fto vertu d'un acte de la legislature en 1882 ; il a 

toujours refu86 de stf reconnaitre> tenu comm« a<?tionna)re, 

et n '4 Jamais rienpay6. '^ 

Cette Bouscriptiou pr6limiuairp ne doit 6tre consid^rV-e 
que comme ^ne simple proposSti<^n. i466o/if, dans son 
ouvrage ' Digest of Corporations,' ro. ' {Subscript jon ' No. 
165, pose le prindpe dans ^s termes sntvants :— " Ulitil 
" all the requirements of tWstuiute hav6 been coniplied 
" with and the articles of the association filed, th^ sub; 
" scription of any one persoii to the articles is a mere pn^ 
" position to take the number df shares specified, of the - 
" capital stock of the corporation thereaft^ij( be formed, 
" which is revocable, and not a binding promise to take 
" and pay." , • 

C'est d'apr^s cetfe doctrine que cette Cour a dfecidi les 
causes de'Zki Cie.^ NamgatUm Vnkm Sf CouUlUtd-i^y, eX 
Sascont/ Sr la m^me tie. (»). Les faits de la prfesente 'cause 
son£ analogues k ceix prouv<6s dans les deux causeg sus- 
nitres. '1 ■■ 7 

Ii'iutira6 cite nni^cmae de Jt^riesSr The Montreal Dottm . 
Co. f), mais la caus^ a et6 d6cid6e sur un aitre point. 
On pent consulter Stephens, Quebec Law.Dig^t, vol. II, 
vo. • Companies,' pp. I^l-IYS, oi toutes les causes porlant 
sur cette questioiTsont cities. 

C'est d'apres notre^propre jurisprudence que la presents 
cause est decid^e. II y a une cause de McDougall ^ Hie 
Unum Navigation Cfe.' (*), ou le d6fendeur a.^tfe condamn6 
^ Ifaye'parce <]^u'il y avait eu paiement^e certains verse- 



V 



oaiuaj.n. « m t. c j. isi (>)il.m,^m. oatcxei 



T 



\ 



:-,K 



:f/:' ■ 




0. HfilLCLJ.eS. 




"HMM: 



i» 



OQURT OF QUESira BEMCtt. '• ^ ' 

, '^X^'":- ■% ... ^ ' ' - . 

menfa, Le <»oatnit, dans 06 om, «tdt <^mplet, «t 1e ^Afen-' ,*»• 'I 
dear a 6t6 JtiRtetnent condamn^. Mais an oontfairf). dan» .' ^']^ 
I'espdo© (joi «oU8 est soumiso il n'y a pas de contrajt par 'rSSSriJlfSr 



d^fant d'acceiptation de la compngnie, qui a ih^ine oxelus 
ie nom d^Arless dans les lettres-patentea d'inporpori^tion 
et dans la liate d^a aotionnaires fournie an gotiyerneWent. 
Aussitfit qtt'Arless a 6t6 notifi* d« payer il a r6voqu6 sa 
wiisftriptioQ, et a constammeut "refuse de se recdnnaitre* 
soascriptear^ ., ", ., 

Kn cons^aehce cette Goijr est d'opiniotf de maint^nir * 
cet appel et d^bonter raction aveeQgpens. ~ ^~ 

Ramsay, J.:-- ^ I . » • 

The appellant subscribed for one share in a company to 
be formed, called the Lawlor Mannfacturing Co. Jl com- 
pany was subsequently formed under letters-patent to 
'certain persons, petitioners, of whom the appellant was 
not que. . " ' 

The company was incorporated by letters-patent in con- . 
formity.with the Act, ^ Vict., 0. 26. That Act aiithorises 
the Lieutenani-Governor to grant lettersrpatent to any 
nambei of |>er8b«i8 less |han five who shidl petition, and 
others who xa&X become shareholders. It is not contended 
^ijpl appellant bedame a -sljLaroholder after the letters- 
pcntjfere granted, The only other way he conld be- 
come a shareholder was -by ifeing a petitioner. It is not - 
preteiided that he w/ia a petitioner;' indeed the reverse 
seems^to be proved, for his name d»» aot appear in the 
schedule of promoters or shareholdeTT iunij^hed^to "the 
Provincial Secretary. The case of Rtuam^ v. The Union 
NmigaHon Cb.(')- seems in point. In the fease oi McDougall 
aiid the same company (») this Court held that McDougall 
wiifj estoppM from urging jthat he was . W a «hareholder - 
bec^uae he Had acted as one df the company subsequently 
tft tl^e letters-pattent. Tlj^ase of Jow^d The Montreal 
GS|fo»A(^.(») .:^as also referred t^, b ^g MT case is not in ' 
point '^jSeveral personi^; signed ^JJ^Nonally and they 
we]^ inpluded in fh^jjbmpanyyThfey refused to pay their 

1^ ('rf*l;GJ.,i83.- (') !?1 h.C.3. 




r.460and24L.C.)J.10S. 



7 



'^ 'j™^ \ 


■ 


' " 'i 


i 


' ' ■■ ' I 


. «i,i 


'.. II 


■..;:] 


•I 


■ i 


'■'' il 


.; .\;|i 


' ''•■|I 


■■ ; ■ !l 


1 



^ 

— -^''d 





». 










4 .1 



'In* 



• m 



4r 






S46 



» 



MONTllKAt LAW REFORTSl 



:^ 



■harea, and woro a WltYJjIIBB HWkthcirMfii^ ^et 

^^ BJgu«d mil iiiiililiiiiiiiJM|lupi(fllWiii tolU th« toinrotary of 

^^il^u'rinv^.!'' the company that w^jjingiu^ on the Hhtae <»nditiou8 a« 

th«s« other particMi. - xhiB won held to he ittsulftoii^tt, for 

/ Jones 'having het^ hiniHelf out as a conl/ihutory ancondi- 

tionally, he coald not «8oa|)e his liabiliU^^^dP^ihK np 

a private conirersatiou w;itih the MdilSlS^^&PtioiMihe 

■■,,■ ^,v' subscribed,. !; ^^'■/ ■> v"'-' '*■ . / " ^ *.'J'^;.f- 

I am of i^|»iou that the judgment shoaljd \^ revcrHe^ 

and the a^^i|i dismissed, \ '!' 

-f- — . the teriSir judgment of £h« CSouif^riliW foWowini 

^' ' " OouPSkEUig that the respondent (plaintiff ptar repriu 

tTinBtatkusfinXh^ Court below) hath not proved the ioaateriid 

« ; allegations of th^demande in this -cause, and that the 

appeU8^t^(def<Mid»nt belo»w) hath established by evidence 

' " . the principal aveiStf^ents of his pleas ; ' ^ 

" , " "Dtmsidering that although the appellant had agreed to 

' ; take onfijmare i» Uie capital stock of the LawUr ManU' 

|»ctnri^C3ompanyiftj^ the' beginning of itr format! 

«j *. neve^in fact, b*ecame?f shareholder of the said Compaiiy, 

i and was not considered » so ^Kjf the said Company at the 

. Ume of its incorporation un^er thf llf ovisionB of the A^jt, 

81 Vict., ohap.25, as his name was %jt include in ihe 

notice oir application fofl^e ^Ibkining M LetterahiPatM 

Incorporating the tfaid 'Rfe Lawlof Manufacturing Cora- 

ptoy subsequently to ijt incorporation, nor that he. eye; 

~ siabscrilMid for stock in (IjaplWiijiiiit Mi^njiactujiiigij|oia* 

r, to wit, the CompanyicResponcfiht.'^which iiasTsae 



♦?»' 



. ceed^' to the Lawlor Manufactnring Company.r 

thwris^^iTor.'&c 



■ft 





*' Oonsiderijig &c., 4^, 
, :-.-^ . dd^ reverse, ^c. 
' Jiii«c|jCr9ii^i«Wting.)^' ° 

aettiaste^, Hut^itutm IfWekt for resj^nd^nt. 

(E. L^- ^ •►. ... 



The Hob. iij. 



Tetfersed." 



^!». 



» «1 



'■^^ " « . •' 



■■ A-> 



'i^J? .-- ' > -■- *. 

- Of 



» I' 




■N/ 



.-ft- 



i\ ^ 



their b^i(^ lohei 
fl th« iwnrotary of 
ime (»iiditiou8 m 
b« ittdutltm^t, for 
^butory aiitiondi- 
ittg op 



boaUl 1(4 







>laiiitiffpar re/irue 
roved the ioaateriitl 
980, and iKftt the 
tiohed by evidence 

llant had agreed to 
he LawUr Manu- 
' it» formation, he 
the said Gompauy, 
, Company at the 
risionB of the A^t 
jt inclnd^tl in the' 
of LetterahiPat^nt, 
nnfacturing Com- 
nor that he, eye; 

t,^hich hasTfiue; 

hWieiiimr, Sec. 
e Hob. Ux. 



r 

xlnTe 



itpn returned." 
pk>ndfnt. 



«■!>- 






/ 






OqiWr or <)DKE)PB BICNOH. 



847 



$/.,..$*■■■■-;■ ■ " . ' . 2*7 mai 1886< 

Cftm Sir A. m Dorion, J. 0., Monk, TimiRR, Cro«h & 









r--^- 






Baby, J|^. 

ALPHONSE METRAa * I 

(jD«n»ik^r en Cbur It^fifrieure), 



APPRI4ANT ; 



RT 



^v JOSEPH TRtJDEAU OT Af. * - 



JHf^tiom munidp 
— S. R., B. a, c 
Ffc., c. 29, s. 2-J 
exclusive. '■ 



ire —Ajtpa— Procedure ^Otoae jugie— 

-Commitsaires d'J^coles — Quo warranto 

89 4- 40—C. P. a art. 1016— 4ft 

funicipal^rt. 846, sqq.—Juridiction 




Jcot .TT-la Qno l'«pp6l ^o.J^^«7t flBtde laC^ur Qup^rieara 8onl£ve 
do tUbnveau tous le« jngementa ini|^utoire8 randus dana la cause, 
etque led^aut par un dtfen,deurlNL:ip^ o»i d'ai^lerd'un jpge* 
ulent interlocutoire renvoyant son exception & la forme, ne I'empd- 
che paa de dificuter ce jiigement aur I'appel du Jugemeot final, I'intef- 

. Kicutoire n'^tant paa ch<ue jugte sur lea (questions iwitlev^ par aon 
exception tl la fortne. , . ' 'j . ^ 

20. Qua d'api^n l(« pyoviaiOTrf^e I'acte 46 Vict c. 29, aec. 2, M lea articleB 
34tt aqq. du" Code Municipal, lea contestations d'41ections de Cbmmis- 
'Mr"* **^'<*'*" ^^'vpnf *tre portfes devant la Uour de Circuit ou la 
(ftirdQ Magisirats, qui ont une juridiction exclusive en cea matldres. 
»e partant Je recoura par bref de quo waranto £UbU par S. R. B. C c. 
15, sec. 40, contra Tusurpation de tellea fomilions, eat abrog^. 

4o. Que m«me si ce recours exiatait •aonfb concurramment avec celui 

?- indiqu« par la loi nonveUe, la simple Section dea dtfendeura comma 

commissalres d'^coles, sans qn'ils se oOt^ot immiao^s d«pa I'exenjice 

de telle chai^, ne donnerait paa lieu A F^manation d'un quo vmranto, 

(AitioiecRa) , ■ ■ 

Appeld^mi jngement de la Cout Sopfirieure dans le 
district d'Iberville, renda U8 novembre 1884, par-scsa 
Honneur 1© Juge OhagnoR. ■' '- :^- : < 






# 

,? 



■f', ' 






feu I , 



1 *; 



■"■->►•— 



#-. 



^^^ 



M«tra« 
•I 









IM 



- 't. 




848 



MOtnURAL IJiVf E£FOimL 



Babv, J. :— 

On s«. plaint ici, par voie cl« tiun warranto, do r6l«<!tion 
a« oertaintw pewoniioH A la charK« d« CoinmiMairoa d'Ro* 
h'H pcmr la paroiMf de St. Michel- Ar«hang«». I^ .)ugoni«'nl 
dont on appi'llo dit «n Nomme : Aux ternn^a do I'art. l(M«i 
du C<m1«* d« I'ro<;6dare, toute perMonn« int^reM^fl p«'ut 
porttT plaiutf^ loreqa'an individu uaurpo, pr«ud MaiiH \wr- 
iniMNiou, lient on oxerce ilU^galement iino chargfl publique 
on une fran<hi«« dans le Baa-Canada, on uno charge <lani 
one corporation,,, corpH ou bureau public, et daiiM I'fHpiVte 
lo deraandour porte plainte parte que, d'*|)rAM ««•« pr6t(ni- 
tiouH, leH d^fendeurs o<!CUpent et exercent la charge ot 
IVanchine de commiBHairea d'^ooles pour la municipality 
Hcolaire do^ la paroittiie de St. Michel- Archange ; il eat «n 
preuve qUe Iph defendourfc ont bien 6t6 d6<!lar6H 6lu8 A la 
dite charge hont leur presence et participation dans une 
aasembR'e pnbliqiie convoqufee en conformitfi k la loi des 
6coleB communes, le 7 juillet 1884, maia il n'appert paa, par 
la preuve, que lea dfefendeurs aient occ-up6 et exerc6 la 
dite charge, en aient pris possesaion, I'aient u«urp6e et 
d6tenuc, ot aient jamais agi ou pretendu agir comme tcls 
commissaires d'ksolea. 

Cionsid^rant que I'information dans la nature d'un quo 
warranto ne pent s'adresser qu'A la personne qui U8urp«, 
d^tieut et exerce la charge dont il est question dans la 
plainte, et qu'elle lui commande de d6clarer en vertu de 
quelle autorit6 il s'immisce dans I'exercice de la dite 
charge, et comme Ifes detendeurs n'ont jamais usarp6, pris 
sans permisfion, d6tenu ou exerc6 la dite charge de com- 
missaires d'6cole«, la procedure adoptfee par I'appelant 
doit 6tre mise de c6t6, sauf k se pourvoir de nouveau lors- 
que les dfifendeurs se seront immisc^ r^feellement dans 
Texercice de la dilje charge, agiront et pr^tendront agir 
comme tela commisBaires. 

Les dfifendeurs avaient tout d'abord produit une excep- 
tion k la forme, mais elle ftit renvoy6e, dnqnel jugement 
il n'a pas kik appel6 dans le temps. 

Aujourd'hui, ils prfetendent qu'il lew est parfkiteaient 



'^^z_ 



i' 



m 




'i 



OOUKT or qURBNIi BBM(^ 



est parfaidemeiit 



loiaible de falre prAvaloir devant (wtto Oour \«i raiiion* 
(;<)iit(mu«ii »ii «4)tt(> »xuoptioii i\ la i'ortnts droit qu« l'Mp|)u- 
liutl tear ni«t, diaaut qa'il y a luaiuUmaut ehote Jvff^ uulre 
eux Har ca^ poiatt ; 

NouM Nommea d'avis que tul n'tvi {xtint h caa. 

Ijea iiilim/'H aUti^uaiunt ({ut* Ih hoqI n^iniNdo qnt incoin* 
biiit h Tappulaut 6tait la Itt>qu|tu sominairM iudiqu^u dana 
le t^hapitre sopti^me da Oodu Manicii>al, laciuelle uont«8* 
taitoii /ippartunait, aux torint^i de I'art. 848, k la Oour de 
Gircntt dti District oo du Gomt6 on h la (bar de Magiv 
tratH, ik rexcluHion de toate autre (lour. 

VayoiiB quelle est la loi sur le «vij«it. Tar' lea Htatuts 
KeibnduB du Bas-Cauada. ohapi dH, (wpt. 41, la procedure 
indiqa6e est toate autre que celle attitieUement reconune 
par la loi. Voir la secticn. . \V\ ;i;\ {;; 

Mais subs^quemment, par YttdU d<!i ^jt^^bdo de 1882, 
* h. 29, sec. 2, cetta clause fut abrogio do^ l«a tarmes aui* 
vants : - ,'_ •".. •-'--- 

" La section 41 du mdme aote^— le Htat. Eef B.-O., (;hap. 
" li) — est remplacte par la snivante : V 

"41. Pour toutes les Kns'-de la< section pr^<£dente, la 
" procedure qui devra ^tre faite, sera ta jcn^me que celle 
" He rapportant k la contestation dcs elections miunicipales, 
" et les mdmes d^lais de proC'Mure s'y appliqu^ront." Or, 
maintenant qaelle est cette procedure indiqu6e pour la 
contestation des Elections municipales ? Elle se trouve 
tout naturellement dans le Code MunicipHl,*.et Ton voit 
aax articles 848 et 849 comment on doit proc6der : o'est 
par requite k la Gour de Circuit du Cloint6 .ou District on 
devant la Oour de Magistrat qui ont jurisdictibii i^bsolne 
et oxclusive.. (Voir ces ai^icles). '/^% ' 

II est Evident par ces deux articles que nul c'onteiyffion 
de la nature de celle-ci nesaurait 6tre port6e ailleiaiji^u'en 
Conr de Oircuit ou devant la Oour de Magistrat. Impos- 
sible de donner une aatre interpretation, et c'est ce qui a 
deja 6t6 d6oid6 pair nos tribnnaux pi^iculiirement en 
Cour de Bdvision • si^geant k Quebec dans la cause Pari$ 
4* CotttureX) " line toate autre procedure, plus sommaiid 

(■) 10 Q. L B 1, * 



M«trM 
•t 

Tnutoau it »l. 



tfj 



J 




f 
^ 



yfSf'ii^; 



"-* : 









^S-. 






•^0 



MONIIl^L LA# BEFOSTS. ' 



'. ■'' 






-•^v '" 







V<i-t 









« .; "•"•"' et, moins couteuse est subBtitii6e : Ji I'aatre. Voici ce q^te 

: **'et"^ <ii||itl'Hon. Juge en Chef Meredith i ^Thep^ Words appear 

^s u «nue( »'• toigg to be amply sufficieat to giv6 to the Oircuit Court 

■ ^ , ^ "and Magistrates CoUfts mentioned in article 84B exclusiv.e 

" Nv ' ; jurisdiction respecting the examination and' deciiiion of 

, '^ • *« ' any contestation," &c., e't plus loiiji : " Upon the whole;?! 
» •<*' *'4 ♦ . ' "! ".am of opinion .that the Artjcles 346 andS48of onr Muni- 
,. ^ '* cipal /^Code give e|:ciu8ive jurii^diction fb the Otrcoit 
" Court and Mtlgistfate's' Court- resppctih^ contestations, 
• • ?^ &c.; and therefore ;; that the judgment of the Court be- , 
%. ^^^Ipw,. rejecting t^e proceedings by 9«o WrrWo in thw^ 
"" Court in the present case 0u|;ht to be corifirnred." • - ^ 

Cette Caur est de> la m6me, opinion,^ Tel, que nous I'a- 

Vons vu oi-kaut; le jugemisht d» la Cour inferietue dit : le 

quo warranto ne peut dtz)^ dirlge que contre celui qi|i 

- ^ usurped tient, etic., ]ane|^iVaniphise, ofllce, 0ic.,'aux termes ite 

'."_ I'art. 1016, et Jies"*46fenw0ur8 n'^t^^t pas dans cette po'fei- 

tion, ^lie '^^pi^c^dure que celle ^€fpte& par Tappelant ne 



X: 



it 












pent'se maintenii^en piieiireil caci. Noqs^petisons.^iQiside 
m6m>!t et croyons gue daiMf tous les^^is les intimi§8 ont 4itk 
Iegalemenf,d6charg68^ repondre a I'jappelant. Le' juge- 
ment estrone confi^ln^ Avec depens.^i „ .^ 
• / ** '. *».* , ; ' ^ Jugendeiit cbufirme, 

. Bobidoux 4* Fbrtin, pour ll!AppeIftut.v ' <, 
Pagnudo, TaUlon Sf Cfouin,- pour les InjtimSs. , . • "* ' 




i-,; V 



ne^t cbnifirme. 



t.' 



«■ 



■ , \ March 24, X8«6. 



.Cbrmn Db&ioN, C.J„ Ramsay, J., T«sgiBR,'J., Cross, J., ' 

Baby, J. 

.IH^ MONTREAL, PORTLAND AND BOSTON RAII^ 
'V WAY COMPANY 

, - ,' {Hespomteht beUm)^ 

7 * • , . APiPSXiLANT; 

- ■ , ' ' '^ ', AND ■ :\ 

. . . JOHN CASSIE HATtOK 

V *" • {Petitionef below), 

» , " ^ , ' ' ' Respomdent. 

^ * Mandamm'r^Qorporq,tion-~'FinB—'C. C. P. 102^,- 

Held:— That tHe 'fine which a oorpotmikioo may ^ Condemned to pay 
. under Article 102&^..C. P., should^tm oitlered to becpiad cme half 4 
- ttie Crown %nd^one half to the petitionef. ' 

.The appeal vt^from ftjudgmeiifof the Superior Court, 

Montreal, Im^v^., rep^rjied in M. t. R.,.l S? C. 69. 

A number of obj«i|gps welfttcAen to tli^ judgment^'but 

1^. tke^hly point whidBpijihec^Bsary to notice, for tli« pur- 

p6«i of the present repStpis the pretension that the fiue 

Vhieh the appelluits had been condemned id pay ui&der 

C.C. P. 1025, 1027, should have been payable to the 

»Crown. ..^ ...,> - 

; 0' jflitowfi;^^., for fhe appellanf "i-- . - -, " 

J\.' Int^ecase m a corporation it^ is submitted that the. > 

penalty is impbsedr iwt aif •damages or compensfl^tion to 

tkl petitioner, .but for^isoMdl^hceife^o the order of the , 

LCourt, andj like an^r 6tj|ier penalty for contempt of •Oourt^'^ , 

^iQuld be adjudged as a for^iture to the Crown. ' *. ' 

JMorrtt and (^o^fKW, fj. (J, e contra. 
%;'■ The Cpjurt in reUderi^ yai^pnieai overruled all the ob-" ' 
■^Qctions t^rged by the|topes]J^» but ordered that the fine 
IgaMLh ^'pftidnnft liCTilb tiro OrownV 



>'»■ 



;■ ^ 



-». 



\". 



i^ •" 



X 



*. ' 
•4^- . 






'.and op e half to th% r 



% 



(S " 



-"C" 



_ ■ V 






>■ * 






-y 



ii 



i 


w 


r 


' 






1. '. 


if: 


1 
i > 

1.' : 

> 


■ ,| 



!^'K 



\. 



852 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



188S. 



■<• ■- 



">if 



I 






i 






>** 



pr@|ent respondent. A clerical error in the reference to a 
**■' ^' I °'*'*J- Statute was also amended. The judgment is as fbl- 

..^•amon..^. lows :-^ ■■-■-■■ y . -/ - ..■ 

' , ' ; *^'t " Considferant qu'il u'y a pas mal jug6 dans le jugemeiit 

;; i dont €fet appel, savoir : le jugf^jment rendu par la Cour Su- 

' ""' iJ6rieure si^geant ^ 'Montreal le 5e jour de septembre 1884, 

sauf et e^iJepto dans celui des consid^rants du dit" juge- 

' . ment daAs lequel il est' 6nQnc6 que I'acte special de la 

, Compagnie deienderesse (Quebec 86 Vict., ch. 39, sections 

^-4- 9-1— J^ et 8) tel que subsequemment amende par la 39 Vict., 

ch. 3, determine Je nombre des directeurs de la dite Com- 

pagnie, le lieu et je^ode de Idur election et le jour ou 

doit 6tre con voqu6 I'assemblfee aunuelie des actionnaires 

pour les fins de ^eur election ; la dite enonciation 6taut 

.' ^» erron^e attendu que I'acte' par lequel le dite acte special 

de la dite Comp^nie est ainsi amende est I'acte de Quebec 

\ Si Vict. ch. 24, et non I'acte 39 Vict, cte 3 ; et aussi dans 

' - le consid^rant suivant ou apres la citation de I'lfcte 35 

Vict. ch. 29< les mots et ' le dit aete I'ainendant' auraieut 

du dtre ajoutes ; ainsi que dans le disipositif du dit juge- 

• .' ment qujcondamne la dite Comp^niapurement et sim- 

■ ^ . plemerft, sur son defiiut de con voquer dans le delai d'un 

' t; , mois, une asserablee g6nerale des actionuaires pour 6lire 

^^^les directeurs, a payer au requerant, I'intime actuel par 

voie d'amende, une somme de #2,000, tandis que par la " 

loi la dite amende devait 6tre repartie par moitie entre le 

■ ' requ^rant et Sa Majeste, ses^heritiers ou siuccesseurs ;. 

" n est en consequence ordonne qu& la citation erronee 
de I'acte 39 Vict. ch. 3, comme etant I'acte amen^dant le dit 
acte special de la Gompagnie, soit rayee dudit consideraut 
en premier lieu mentionne et remplace par la citation du 
Statut de Quebec 3*7 -Vict. ch. 24 ; que le considlpmt eu 
second lieu mentionn^ soit amende par I'insertion apres 
les mots '^"Vict. ch. 29' des mots 'et dtt dit act6 I'amfen- 
dant'; et qpant a I'erreur ci-dessus mentionn6e dans le 
»(- disppsitif du dit jugement, il est ordonne que le* cUt dis- 

poisitif soit amende par, la suppression des mots 'au re- 
■^- qu6raiit ', et par I'lnsertion apres les mots ' par voie d'a- 
lin^l|i^«» nnfi sftmrne dft i2.0fl0 ' dflfi mots snivantw : 'mnitife 



7: 



^. 



.• 1 



^. 



V 



m: 



.r 






i*. CX)TJBT OF QUEDira, BENCH. 



868 



an tequ6rMit et rWutre moiti6 & Sa Majesty, see hfeTitiere m., fr. a b. Co. 
on snccesseurs ' : s . Hmton; 

" Et la Cour confirme le dit jugement a ious autr<B8 ' - 

egards saiuf q^uant attx parties d'icelui pr^utemeat amen- 
dees aA'ec dflpens en favour de rintim^ cbntr^ la dite"-' 
iippelante; *, , « 

" Et ordonue que le d6lai pour la' convocation de I'as- * "^^ 
8embl6e, ou il sera precede a I'^lection des directeursen ik' 
manitere et avec l^|i formalites prescrites p^r le dit juge- 
ment, soit etendu au delai d'un mois ^ compttsrdeiasigni- 
0c%tion du present jugement." > r^, 

Judginent ibbdified. 

M. S. Lonergim, attorney for Appellant, f ' f 

John L.viMbrm, attomejr, for Respoddeiit. 
(jr. K.) "'■ ■' i 



■ >-■ *--k 



■ 'V 



;:-"/v:#;:;^-- -:;.■' |;J^:-^ Hay 26^ 1885: • 

Cwttm DoRioN, C.J., Slo^, J., Tessise, J., Cross, J.; 

JOSEPH A. BOY, " 

^ ^ {Plaintiff beUno) 

* ^^ : Appellant; 



%y 



s ■** -* 






/#" 



Asno 



-^, 



LA COMPACf^^IE DU GRAND TRONG DE CHEMIN 3?Jg^ ' * 
^ FER WJ CANADA, ^ • ^ -^ / 

(J%^en<fon<6efou;) ' 

.^' J^PONDBNT. 

Company — RaUtoap^— Negligence. »: 

■it - . _ . ' "-■ - / 

Held u—^kiwjKt presumiition of f»\flt arises ag&higt a'*)-ailway comi^any 
Iroin a pawan being injurecl oa thh track ; on the contrary, it is for' 
. iiie persoo injureS to shp'w th«t he had a lawful right to be .there ;r . 
anrt toltalble ^im to claim damage* he must also show that the 
Iway^ete guilty of' s6me. foult.'^egleet om imprudence wherehv 

TOL-LQ. R ' • ' 23 J 



.'.. M. 



"ft 






>^f 



• * , 






854 



uDntbeal law reports. 



*'ie. dii 
id Tronr* 



iv;:'' 



<#' 



i/<}< 



».«r 



(V.* 









Fifl 



~Z5 



1m 



»'*> 



'4 



$. 



^ - " — - 



.../' 



the injury wjw caiiw^cl. Rd, where tlie phiintiff was Injured by a train 
at u Mtreet croHsing, and it ai>]H;ure«l tliat there was a signboard indj. 
eating the croBMing, and tiiut the bell wan rung and the whistle 
sounded li> warn paseors of the approaching train, it was held that 
the plaintifl' could not claim daniiigOH from the coninany. 

Th^appeal was from u judgment of the Superior Court, 
MoBflJireal, Mackay, J., dismissing au action of. damages 
"braught by the 'present appellant against the Grand 
Trunk Company, the reasons assigned in the judgment 
b^nig as folio wk : — " 

" Ooiisidfiring that there is absence of proofs th certify 
of fault eojAfiiitted by defendants or their servants, lead- 
ing to thti accident by which plaintiff says he was hurt, 
add for^ which hurt he claims damage> ;„^^ ( ' 

"Considering that defendants haVfe- proved that they 
aild their serv.aiits were; not in any negligence; 

"Considering that ihe accident would nol hftve hap- 
pened had plaintiff used reasonable care in approaching 
the railroad track, he well aware of the locality and of 
what risk he ran in approaching without care." 

P. H. Roy for' the appellant. 

6f.Mac»ae, Q.C., for the respondent:,. . , , 

Cross, J. :— ' • ., ' ■ ' ' - 

This appeal is from a judgment jjismissing an action of 
damages, brought by Dr. Roy, a;!j^&ician practising in 
the city of Montreal^ against t)te'.5fend Trutik Railway 
Company, /*^v"^ ' ' 

He complains that having r^asion to vi.^t patients I 
near the town of St. Henry.lifrlhe vicinity of the city of 
Montreal, he made an attempt to cross the railway by St. 
Philijp strfeet, St. Henry, in the direction of 2he river si 
Lawrence, about half-p^t five o'clock in the evening of 
the 23rd NoyeiAber, 1880, when ,he was overtaken % a. 
locomotive belongin^^tq the Company, proceeding with -I 
great rapidity from the city of Montre|il, which over- J 
tamed and iajured his sleigh and inflieted on himself 
^se^ious personal injury, for which hecla'imed the sum of 
$10,000. He alleges that;the St. Philip street crossing Js '] 
an eji;tr8mely dang^srous one ; that on one side hbttse^ are 



k 



I 



,4* W 






. • •■• - ., v «»..., 

... <» .1 ,. 

■ ■ ..-I-' >: 

. - 



..'• *., 









A 



ip- 



QO^BT OF QVfiENiS; BENCH. 



^J\ 



m 



1888. 



Roy 



^ 



built up to n^ar the fluiyiray, so as to obstruiftvthe view • 

of approaching trains; that the evening in question was 

very dark ; there were no signboards, there indicating the oronaTwuo. 

crossing, as required by law ; the locomotive Ijy Which he , 

was injured carFied no head-light, rang 'no^ijjell and ' 

sounded no whistle, so tha^t was^ wholly" the fault of 

t Ke Compafl^ ana the ser yuiits that the accident occurred' 

arfd, he sustained the in^iiry. * . J ^ *»• '^ '-. 

The Conil)any pleaded that they ha4 been guilty of hb v 

fault or- neglect by themereives or [their sei^^ants, and if 
Dr. Roy sustained any injury it must Jhave through his 
own lault, neglect q:^ imprudences? ^ 

The collision w^ proifipd, and injury sustained by Dr^ 
Roy of a character Jjifficfenily serious keep him con- 
fined to his lioi^ fgar same time to the prejudice and loss 
|< of his^professiona;)[ infcome and Som'e Expense to himself. 
The qtiestion coiiieg to J^, whether he js entitled to 
indemnity from the railway. The question is one puTei|y 
of fact sisih who, jf an/ one,' was in, fault. 
- There is no doi^bt of the (irossing being an extremely. ' 
dangerous one wh^re eMra precautions ate desirable ; but 
^th# duties imposed upoa the railway are regulated by , 
th6.8tatutes»itheir, right to exercise their privileges are 
subject to the conditions thereby imposed, if they fulfil ^ 
tiies(^ -conditions', they are considered to have exercise^v 
diligence and are not in fault,. The controversy is cons6-.r 
quehtly reduced to an enquiry as to the facts. The proof 
shows that |he signboard indicating: the crossing existed 
at the point in quesition at the time of the aecidcint, in - 
^ acio|dance with the requirepaents of the law. j||^ ^oii- • 
tended for the Doctor that "there s^uld be^pHf sign- 
boards — one on eac^side dT the rffl^iroad ; but ims has not" 
'been the practice nor thft way jhe law has been construed. 
The locomotive, which must have been the .oiie in coUir .» 
s sion with. Dr. ;R^y, undoubtedly had a head-light. The 
only que8tion.i|i respect to which a doubt ha6 beeii raised 
as regards the proof, was as to the ritn^g of the loeomo-^ 
tive-bell.\It is proved in a very positive miijirier, i||>t 
v p»ly by tjie pertJQiiB iii chwg© btit by others, thAt thel^'T 



-^ 



,'. ' 






Ml 






^ j'" ' V fW ^ 



-^■? 









'^iM,i 



21 »ir* 



■ i- • V . * 



":''»,»- "" ,".■''"'' ' »<**"».»' -J, 



im 



i^'" 






866 



MONTMIAL LAW REPOBTB. 



1 1 
1 < ■ 



4. 



Roy 

A 

lia Cio. du 
Uroiul TruLO. 



• ^ 




1^ 


'^'c^S 


i' ft*:: 

.,1 ~Sw 


M ■ 2-J 



"\ 



^' 



1*' 





Ia^' 


■^ 


hf 


1 


s ii 




**fj . 








fj'^ 


\ 


Wt * 


^ 






i^t 






\ 



"i 



were but three engiptes went out that evening betwoen 

five aiid six o'clock ; ihe bell8 were rung and the whistles 

sounded. One of the jtvitnosses' habit is to report ii' the 

hell is not rung^ and another was on the- track — not on 

an engine or trun. For the appellant but one vritness-^ 

Dr. Roy's brother, who was in the sleigh with him— 

1|ie bell was not rung. Adelard Leonard, a 

iU>oy of twelve years, says he did not hear it, but^he 

rt some distance. The fact of its b^ng rung o&^^Il 

hree trains that passed out that^ evening is corroho- 

d'^y quite a nximber of witnesses, and an explanation 

iven of the' precautions adopted to secure it. It is 

bwiides .shown, that the engine could not have been goiug 

last on accQUQt of the stoppages it had to make, audi that 

^at St. Philip street an approaching train can be seen at a 

reasoiuable distiGtnce,; We find that the Company had 

adopted all the precautious they were bound to take, and 

fo:^ that reason must hold them ,^xcused and must con- 

firni the judgment which dismissed Dr. Roy's action. 

It is"uo doubt a hard case for him, but all are subject to 
accidents. |fo{iTes^in!ptiott. of fault arises against a rail- 
road from a person get^ng injured on the track ; on the 
contrary, it is for him to show that he had a^wful right 
to be there ; and to enable him to claim damages from the 
railroad he iliust besides show that they were guilty of 
some faWlt, uegleet or imprudence whereby the injury 
wto caused- It has not been so shown in this case,-' and, 
as a consequence, we confirm the judgment of the Supe^t' 
rior Court. The case of Lovett y. Grand Trunk Railway. 
C;»»^7^/ (^) Is in point. 

There is some contradiction 
appears that the engine wqs moving at a moderate speed, 
and that the company had complied with all the require- 
ments^of ithe l%w- It is quite true that it was adange^ 
o'us crossing, but Dr. Roy w^ in the habit of passing the 
|>lace and was fully aware of the 4(uig@i'- The (Wgine 

% (') 8 Legal Newi, 98. 






the evideuflie, But it 



J 












~S^ 




V i 

( 



tiotjilt or QtTOTiira bbnch. "* 



86t 



\ 



I'Wi in sight when he attempted to qross. ^e do not "•*• 
I thmk thAt in a case of 'this nature there is any ground toi - "^^ 
distit^rbing^^ihe decision of the Court below. 

Judgment confirmed 
Roy 4* BmUUlier, attorneys for appellant. 
Geo. Macrae, Q.(7.,„attorney for respondent. 



uci«. 

« Qriind 



(J. K.) 



» . '>, 






May 27,1886. 



Insolvent Act of 1%^^ — QffkiaLAssignee continued as Creditors' 
As^gnee—^^rety^ip. : 7 

Held :~Where an offltrial Maignee under tho Insolvent -Act of 1875 has 
taken poeseHHtoii of an insolvent estate i n that capacity, and subse- 
quently the creditors have appointed him assignee to the estate yvith- 
out exacting any further security, and while acting as assignee of the 
ereditonche mak^s default to account for monies of the estate, that 
the creditors h&ve recoyH^ upon the bond gjven for the due perform- 
. ance of his duties as officii^ assignee. V; Lji_l . • • i "* 

The appeal was from a judgment of the Superior Court, 
Montreal, Jbtt£, J., dismissing the appellant's action. 
The decision is reported in '6 Legal News, 839* 
° .B^i^tte, Q. (7., for the appellant. 

locoito, Q. C for the respondent. .... 

Cross, J.:— ' . 

In 1875 Olivier L^ours was appoint^ an Official 
Assignee under th^ pin^isioxis of the Insolvent Act of 
1875, 88 Tic, cap. 16. and on the 26th of Angnst of th«t 



m M«Nk, J., 'Ramsay, J., 'Pkssiijr, J.^^Oiwis, J, Baby, J. 
CLfiMENT DANSEREAU es uuaj.. 

(Plaintiff^ in Court below)^ . 

* / • Appellant; 

OHARt^S H. LETOURNEaX * 
« (Defendant in Court below), 

» ., . Eespondknt. 



\ 



>.- 



!-. 



i 






W"' 



m 



t": 



IM. 

' n»niivrt>Hii 
livtiiiiriivux. 



I • I- 



CIS 



m 



MOlJTRBAt LAW RtiPOtn*. 



> I 



year the respondent and .ToHeph Bninet entered into, a 
bond to Her Majesty, in conformity with section 28 of 
said Act, to stand as a security for the benefit of the cnv 
ditors of any ebtato which might come into his possessiou 
under said Act. 

On the 26th of February, 18t6, Lecours, in his quality 
of Official Assigii^'e, received and acu^epted an assignment 
of their estates from Mesftrs. Pierre Houle and Kcmi 
Favreau, partners in business nndi^r the firm of Houlc & 
Co., and inconsequence came into possession 6f divers 
parcels of real estate pertaining \o the iusolveutM, 

On the 22nd March, 187t», Lecours was named assigufn 
by the creditors. He caused the real /state to be sold in 
due course of Taw to Augustin Ro\t&;t, to whom he exe- 
cuted a deed of conveyance on the 11th July, 1876, therein 
acknowledging that he had received the^rice — |8,85.j. 

At the instance of Rieutord, a creditori) he. was by the 
Court on the 29th MaTch^l879, prdered to dep«iit thiH 
amount in a bank under pmi of imprisonment, which he 
failed to d,o and abscpn^^jl^^ 

On the 10th April,' 187d^tjje a|^>elluit wm. named 
assignee to Hcyeile & Co., to Replace Leiours, and the 
creditors refusing to prosecute the securities of Lecours, 
Rieutord, as creditor, on the 16th September, , 1879. 

; obtained leave of the Court to prosecute, the present 
action in the name of the assignee, and has* accordingly 

^ instituted the same, claiming for the creditors |6,0<><», !ihe 
amoini}t of said security bond, from tl^e respondent as mat 
of thef sureties. , f 

The respondent' defends on th^%round that %^en said 

• properties**Ayere sold JLecx)UT8 was., atrting no|k as Official 
Assignee but asfimple assigne*', named by the creditors, 
and that the seciirilty botid in jjuestton did not cover or • 
extend to the8e«'^ts^,J . ', " -^ 

A question of lal/^ wSs 0x!m ta^kei'tM *o whether the 

-creditors, wi)ot |iad h^ed„the» same ass^nee to whom the 
assignn]«nt^hia4 beek ma^e, cotild claim the beax^fit of the 
■iectii4t^gh#ti l^y him £01*^8 coodUct, generally, as an 
Qfficia] AHiii%npffyndpr%iC i tiQn 28 of the lagolvgat Act, 






-^-^ 



M 






W«- v.. , 

II A .1'/; 
'V. \''>-. ■•■ 






^:k' 



«a 



«Ul 









■If .* I'-i''}', 



iV/T, 



t^ 






■ ,*'^^'«^ 



'(■^r 



■^ *wisg-#3»»r'w«y-™B?^^ " 



;^ 



■A 



t etttered into, a 
th «ertion 28 of 
benefit of the cro- 
I to his posKessiuu 

rs, in hid qaality 
[>d an assignment 
'onhi and Komi 
firm of Houlc & 
session bi divers 
solvents, 
I named assigutw 
bate to be sold in 
to whom he exe- 
uly, 1876, therein 
^ri«;e — |8,85.j. 
»ri) he. was by the 
I to depMBRit thiH 
nment, which he 

liuit waft, named 
lie* -ours, and the 
■ities of Ifecoure, 
leptember, , 1H79. 
ute. th« present 
has accordingly 
ditors $ti,mn, the 
espctndent "as «a« 

• " /- 

L that tv^en saH 
a^ nob as Official 
bjr tne creditors, 
did not cover or • 

n lo whether the 
see to whom the 
the benefit of the 
generaJty, as an 
rngolvgat Act, 






iX)UHT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. 




86' 






no. 



Dmumnm 
k 



This qu^eation was already before this Court in the caaer. 
of The Canada Oiwrfmtee Ckmpany & McNkhol* ('), and was 
decided in fayor of the v»»Udlty of the seciurity. It is an -.'*'^"^'* 
extremely nice point— one which has resulted in coutra- 
dictory decisions both in Upper Canada and here. ' ^ 

We held that the restrictive principle to the effect that 
sureties were only bon^d within the strict letter of the 
law, and tKat suretyship could not be extended de j)er$ona 
ad personam, de tempore ad tempus, db re ad rem, had not a . " 

jotft appUcflitiou in this case to relieve the sureties in ^ — 

question. TC^hey were in the first instance .required to be 
given for the benefit of all concerned, that is, for the ben- 
eiit of the cii'editors of any estate that might come into the 
assignee's pb^session. |Iad the creditors taken no action, 
thesectTrity iu question would undoubtedly have remained 
goodfor^teir benefit generally. Having resolved to retain 
the same assignee, they'^opted him with the sureties' 
existing to guarantee^ his conduct ; they relinquished 
nothing, but simply ap^i'oved of the same person remain- , 
mg assi^ee. He had no account to render and no deliv- 
ery over to inake to a successor, who would have*iCcepted 
the property and accouE|t and given him a discharge. » He 
rnmaiued accountable, aind his sureties remained bound 
for that account. Tql be more "certain that this is the 
proper construction oiLthje law, we should read together 
the different portions oi the Insolvent Act of 18t5 bearing 
on the point, beginbing, with section 28. Abstracting 
.ti»e words applicable to the- point, it would read as^ fol- 
lows : — " Each person so ^appointed assignee sm^ hojdr 
"oHRce during, pleasure, ^nd before acting as suoh^hall. 
"ifive security for the due fulfilment and discharge of his 
" duties for the benefit of the creditors of any estate which 
"may cova/b into his possession under this Act ; and in case 
"any such assignee fails to pay over the monies -^received 
"by him or to account for the estate or Mxy part thereof, 
"the amouajt for which such assignee may be in defaiali 
"may be recovered from his sureties," Su^ The securit 
is to cover any estate that may come into the assignee's 

(') ft Tflg>1 Nowfi, ff»« , / 



m. 



'Hk' ' 





■ 


A '^ 


H . 


■ 




« 


■ 


' 




I '-' 


' 


( 1 


m\ 






1 ' 


. 




1 ' 




;:t.J 


Kii&iL.!i 





^\,^ 







W*^ 






r. 



860 



^^^ 



w- 






DiknM'renii 

. * 

L.'tuuruaui. 







""^.r 



K 



A 



'*lfe>*4 



iNTRfeAi U^ RinFonm 



St: 






^j 




i. 



."I 



A- 



hands, and his sureties ale to bejiahle in case ho fails to 
pay over" the monies received by him or to a(;(;ount (or 
the estate, Thei-e is no qua]iii<:iition limiting it in thJN 
r«wiM»ct to his'hJKcial «-apacity, nor to any person save the 
, .tn-editors,' who is to give him a discharge. H«) reoeiv<'H 
the whole estate by the assignment, and must be respon- 
sible for it until he gets a legalvdischdirge. His adoption 
•by the creditors as the assignee who is to retain the 
estate without asking additional security, is his a<;cept- 

^. an«:e by them with such setjutity as ho brings with him 
this would seeni to bo the intention of the law, because, 
by subrsection a of the same section, it, fs provided, that 
"the Officlar Assignee mjiy bq rekjuired to give such futther 
" sjpcurity as-on jpetitio'n of a creditor the Court or Judge 
" may order." By section 29 the assignee, on his appoint- 
ment by thfrcredrtg^is to " give security in manner, form 

. "and .effect as PHM »» the preceding section," that iH 
for any estatd M JaB^ Bay comeinto his possession. And 
by sub-s^tidiylJIHHdction 29, "Any creditor of the 
"estate may, i^^^|||ca8e of any person required under 
"the said 28th and 29th sections tp give security, have 
" inspection of suph security, and may, if in his opinion 
" the surety or sureties in such security are insufficient, 
" apply on notice to the Judge for an order that new or 
" additional sureties be fiiitished." It is, I think, a fair 
construction to hold that these securities may co-exist ; if 
so, there is the greater reasoh that|Mie one first given is 
not discharged by the mere adoption by the.credittn^ of 
the Official Assignee who accepted the assij^umefat. Up 
to the time of 'his Realizing and distributing the piroceeds 

^''of the estate, there is ho , person having the (j^ity of " 
capacity of receiving from him the value in his hands 
and granting him a discharge. This is a beneficial con- 
struction, and one dictated by common c^ense. I should, 
therefore, hold the respondent responsible on hisrbond to 

"4he extent of the appellant's claim. / 

'It is a question whether the whole amount of ^ bond 

^ should not be recovered for the benefit of those interested, 



■ •* 



rV 



■ •■:/: 






-J< 



i-l 






1 



I 






OOtJRT or QD KEN'S BENCI^ 



hnt no othAr crodilor oroimfi, ftn4l'w% will not i^t^pose in 
inUmtion to do ho. s \. • . 

I would roverHO tite jndgmnnt and giv« jud^^tnent To; 
appellant to tho cxtont of hM interest. \ 

Clark, inhU "Treatis*' on i)w InHoIvent Art,"'iit p. 18C 
rnmarkK :— " It will b«« oh«orv«»d that th« 28th iw><*tion 
" ri'quireB an Oili(;ial AH8ign<'e, on iM'ing ap|><>iiitnd by th« 
" Govornor-in-Council and bofore acting, to give aecarity 
"forth«i bcnotlt of the creditors gtmorally. .HoiHalHO,. 
"under section 28, on assuming the management of any 
• estate; liable to'give such further seciirity as on tKe ^tt- 
"tion of a creditor of that estate the Judge may order- 
" Under this section the assignee appointed at th« firtt 
" meeting of th(; creditors mast give security to saphjpm 
" amount as may be fixed by the creditors at the meeting. 

" It would seem that if the creditors' assignee is also an 
" assignee appointed by fche Governor-iu-Council, and has 
"already given security under section 28, he is not bound ^ 
" to give fresh security under this 8ectibn,,-thoiigh h'e may 
"he called upon to inq'ease it.. ' But if he has not given 
"sel'urity when chosen assignee by the creditors, .t]hiH«sec« 
" tion compels him to d« .so to such an amount «fi8 the 
"creditors may theii fi^- ' ■ • 

" It seems intended ofiiefly ^o meet the case of the ere- . 
"ditors' assignee not being an Officolal Assi^ee, and- not 
" having already given security tq the Crown,".in support 
of which he cites Church. \.. Cousins, 28 Q. !B. U. c. 
540. ■ f '"■ ^ „_'"l _.# y " '■ . * -' . 

Sec. a, under -this sect^, direow the deposit of 
securities given or to be giv^n under sections 28ap4 29 
for the use of persons entitled to sue thereqiif, j*fi3T^ sec- 
tion b any creditor may have inspection of t^e sQcarities 
given under sections 28 and 29, aj»d jfiiiay^ if in 
the surety or sureties are jnsufficient, apply fo; 
that new or additional sureties be furnished 
tion evidently contemplated the co-exist»ice of botj^ pre- 
vious ikinds of seculrityi that is undef secfeions 28 a^d 29, 
and. that an addition m^y- even be made, so thai^ thefe 
may be thg«»co - «»8tiag-seouritio8 fog the" beaefit of the. 




I 



xw oi 



m. 



erder 
This stp' 



1/:?= 




t".v:--: 












;. ■ ■ 


■ ,;" . *^- 


.- 






, :' * 












»• 


.* 


/■;■'.' 


,/■'.■"' ?* 








■ iv:..-' ^:- 




r,t '■-■—: 






■ 




: ^_:.,. . -,..,. ■^-■... -^^- .f .■- 


1,. 








1 ■ '.'■■' ■ . 






-■;\ 








■ . .- - r 












>,- 




/ ' 


J.-.--- 




;.■ *■' 




.■:■_ '":■■}'-■ V; '■.. ::'• 


M\--'-^ 


".- -,-^ 


- -. ^--^,^_ — ^^ 


/ m 






■ '/'.-' 


■■-.,' ' ■ ^ . ■ 


' 






/ ■• ' 


' f' '■- ■ 


1 






'■ ■'. ' ' ■ ■:■' ■ '' ' . ', ■ ■ 


■ ...■ V 


/ 


." .,*''■. .'" 








'/■'■■' 








. ' ". ■ ' ■■' ' . 




<» 


* 


■ ■ ■ '' ■ ■ t 


• 

r 


£) . 


" ■ " 7 


/ .■:;■'■ 








■ 1 ■ ■ » ■ - "■,■ 








:v /' 


■ ■ ■ ♦ 




L....;i 


1 . ^ ■■ ■ 






■■■■■ •■■■ 


r. ,■/..-;■'::. 4 ■ 
■■■■'■ ,■■'■ "1/ -t' ■ ' j' ■ 


; ..■'■■■*.( ■ n ... ' "-. 


■* 


'■-". '. - - . 


^-■..-■.■'^/^-.: 






/ , 


f . 








".w' .^ ) ■ •■'. . ,'■'■ 


I'- .■ . ■ , 






- .-■ ■. ■ '■ 1 -■ * , --'.T 


'■''*' ".* . ■ 




/ 










■'^.^^^ '•: v^-:--^:,::-.';:: 








• ■■ ■:■::■ .^r..,... 


,.■ v"„'. ..-■". ,.."..■ r."' 


-■ '"^ ''^ ".. 


yr :, 


,r' 










* . . 






* ■ > ■. 




'i 




<) 



c 



t 



IMAGE EVALUATION 
TEST TARGET (MT-S) 



-n 







&^ 





{./ 



^ 



> 




fe 



.<^ 



>^^ 







i 

II I.I 

11.25 



^lU 122 

:^ U& 12.0 



.-^ 



^ Ik 



'\ 




■V 




Sciences 
CorpOTatiQn, 







%' 



c 



''*,\, 






^„ 




•V5 



•■TV 




■iS^sfei':' 



;rii 



fW^-'T^' 



m 



llOMTREAL LAW RElPOftl*^ 



188S. 

Danaeresu 
Letourneux 



i • ■ !■; 



I'M 
1> 



I.I- 



> l*MM«k<ll 



#'- 



creditors. I am aware that thWe have been contradictory 
decisiohs on the question involved, but we adhere to the 
• precedent already made by this Court. We hold the 
security^ given by the assignee to the Crown, in this case, 
on his appointment as assignee, available to the creditors 
for the assignee's deficiency. Jlf^ therefore reverse the 
judgment of the Superior Court and give the appellant 
judgment for the amount to wHich the creditor igjatur- 
ested, for whose benefit the present suit has been insti- 
tuted. That amount we conceive it our duty to limit to 
the actual cost to the claimant of the credit now sought 
to be enforced, being disposed to view it in the nature ol" 
the purchase of a droit liiigeux. 

i 

Ramsay, J. : — 

The principal question that^mes up in this case is the 
one deci(ied in The Canada Guarantee XJampany <fe McNichols 
('). In that case the Chief Justice and I dissented, and 
the judgment of the Court in this case seems to have fol- 
lowed the dissent. Although my opinion is unchanged, 
I think it right in a matter of this kind, where the inter- 
pretation of a statute only is involved, to adopt the juris- 
prudence established, leaving to a ^higher tribunal or to 
the Legislature the responsibility of setting the Court 
right if it is in error. ' - " . 

The judgment of the Court below does not determine 
any of the other pleas filed, and with the second, third 
and fourth pleas I am against the respondent. I concur 
with the other members of the Court in the view taken of 
the fifth and sixth pleas. 

The judgment is recorded as follows : — \ 

" Considerant qu'en sa quality de syndic officiel 1^ dit 
Lecours etait tenu et oblig6 sous sa responsabilitg ^r- 
sonelle ainsi que I'intime — qui a garanti ptar son cautioi^-^ 
nement I'ex^ution fidele par le dit Lecours des devoiii 
de sa charge— de payer aux cr<§anciers des faillis Houle & 
Cie. le prodnit des biens des dits faillis, et que cette res- 
ponsabilitS — aussi bien celle du dit Lecours que celle de 
0)6 Leg. News, 334. 






;'fi 




^. 



COURT (iP,QtJE^N*S BENCrt. 



M 



sa caution — est rest6e la m^me aprds la nomination du dit 
Leconrs comme syndic par les creancieni; et que ni I'un 
ni I'autre n'en ont jamais 6t6 decharges, rii releves ; 

" OonsidSraut que le dit Lecours est j^ste en possession 
des biens de la faillite Houle & Cie., e^ a manque sk son 
obligation d'en rendre compte et d'en payer le produit 
aux creanciers d'icelle, et s'est trouv6 h decouvert pour un 
montant considerable 6xc6dant celui du cautionnement, 
et I'etait encore lorsque" la presente action a ete intent^e ; 

" Considerant que le cautionnement donne par I'intim^ 
couvre le deficit du dit Lecours, et que Tintim^ en est 
responsable vis-a-vis de I'appelant en particulier jusqu'4 
concurrence du montant qui est legitimement du au 
nomm6 Felix Rieutord qu'il repr^sente en sa dite qualite ; 

" Mais considerant que la creance du F6lix Rieutord, 
represents en cette cause par I'appelant en sa quality offi- 
cielle, est litigieuse ^e sa nature, et qu'il n'a reellement 
paye et d^boursS qu'une somme de mille paistres pour en 
devenir I'acquereur, et que quant au dit F6lix Rieutord le 
cautionnement est rfeductible a la mesure du montant 
par lui actuellement paye ; 

"Considerant que dans le jugement dont est appel, 
savoir le jugement rendu le 30e jour de septembre 1881 
par la Cour Superietire siegeant a Montreal, il y a erreur, 
ren verse le dit jugement, et rendant le jugement que la 
dite cour de premiere instance aurait du rendre, con- 
damne le dit dSfendeur intime 4 payer' I'appelant es 
qualite la somme de #1000 avec interSt, etc." 

B^ique, McGoim Sc'^Emard, attorneys for appellant! 

iMcoste, Globenskif, Bisaillan 4* Brosseau, attorneys for 
respondent. 

(J. K.) • . 7 ' 



188S. 

DanierMra 

' laetourneux. 



I 



\ . 



n^H&ipmiii, 



\ I 



X 



■ 1 1'#- 



•.■» 



«;> 



tl 

(I 

I 

fl 

hi 



,t 






M..M " 



» 1r- 



^1 



4%^.. 



r 

5*' 



It^' . 






rmhi. 



364 



MOlmiEAL LAW RtSPOBT^ 



May 26, 1866. 



Coram Dorion, C.J., Monk, J., Tessikr, )s., Cross 

Baby, J. 



j:, 



LA COMPAGNIE DU GRAND TRQNC DE CHEMtK IM 
FER DU CANADA 

(Di^endtmt m Court below), 
i .' - Appellant; 

.^^AND , 

WILLIAM ACSEGAN ' 

{Plaintiff in Court below), 

, Rkspondent. 

Railway — Damage iaused by sparks from loconuaive— 
BesponsibUUy. 

- Hbld:— fhat a railway company is responsible for damages censed by 
sparks from its locomotive, notwittistandingNJbhe fact tliat the com- 
pany has compliednwith all the requireimenis of the law, and has 
used the i&oflt. approved appliances to preveiit*the escujM|||park8. 

The appeal was from a judgment of the Sil|H|| Court, 
Montreal, Jktt^, J., maintaining an actioi^ brought by 
the respondent, claiming damages for the ^burning of his 
barn, which was set on &te by spai;k8 from the appellant's 
locomotive. ' .j^- 

G. Macrae, Q. C, for the appellant!; / 

C. A. Geoffrion, Q. C, for the respondent. 

Cross, J.: — , , 

Me^gan is the owner o£ a farm at St. Zotique, iear the 
River Beandette Station of the Grand Trunk K^lway 
Company. He brought the present action against that 
company for the value of a barn and its contenta des- 
troyed by fire' on or about the 6th November, 1881, w^ich 
fire, he alleges, was communicated to Ms bium by sparks 
^m a locomotive of the Company- being at that date nm 
over their railway ill the vicinity, the whole through the 
carelessness and fault of the servants of the Company. 



•> 



':^^> 



OOUBT OF, QUEEira BBNCH. 



865 




)E CHEMtK m 



To this action the Company pleaded that the alleged '"»• 
damage was not caused by any act of omission, neglect or aJjiid'Tn" 
wrongful conduct of the Company or their servants, but mm«wi. 
by tljp default, neglect or imprudence of Meegan hiniself, 
who could have prevented it by ordinary care ; that the 
Company and their senants complied with a^l the ' 
requirements of the law,) and used all due and necessary 
precautions, more especially to prevent the issue of sparks 
or cinders from their locomotives, and Were not responsible - ., 
for any damage that might have occurri^d. 

It is established ^y numerous witnesses that while the 
locomotive was seen approaching from the West on the 
morning in question the smoke-stack was emitting a 
thick, black smoke intermixed with iigarks ; a^north wind 
prevailed, which blew this smoke right on to Meegan's 
barn, and within a few minutes afterwards the flames * 
were discovered in the upper part of the interior of the 
bam, which was distant from the railway about 140 feet. 

On the otKer hand, it was attem^ed to be shown that 
stejun was shut off bn approaching the station and oppo- 
Asite.Meegan's bam, and thkt sparks could hoi escape while 
steam was so shut off; t(iat even if th^ steam had not 
been shut off, sparks coull not be carried alive for inch a 
distance frbm a coal-bun iing engine, which the one in 
question was, and which in this respect is different and 
less dangerous than a wo ad-burner. :^ 

Notwithstanding the fjirce of this /evidence the Judge ' 
of the Superior Court attached greater weight to that of 
the witnesses who a^tuaply saw the smoke and sparks 
bearing on the barn, ai^ conoluded that he was war- 
ranted in the inference that the fire had been communi- 
cated to Meegan's bam ^>y the sparks from the Company's 
engine. We do not feel justified in saying that this view 
was erroneous. ' 

Again, it is suggested that it appears from the evidence - 
fliat Meegan wae open to the charge of negligence from . 
the fact that a considerable opening was left over his 
barn door, which unnecessarily exposed the interior to be 
entered by the sparks if driven thither by the wind. 



nno 



m 






! 






^< - i : - ^ -.^^ 



^X^-fV-Jf r'l -^„^.^k£^^"t^l^t.iLi^ ^ 



ri- 



.>^ 



866 



MONTREAL LAW REPOBTa 



1H8&. 

U Cia du 

(IrwiKl Truno 

* 

MoegMi. 



■B 






But it is explained that it is costoil&ary to leave such 
openings for the purpose of ventilation, and a proprietor 
is surely fairly entitled to fdllow his own fancy in tho 
lorm of hil building. ' \ 

There L^va further proof which in ol more iinportaurf, 
viz., that the Company had adopted every precaution l»y 
known appliances to prevent the "escape of sparks, using 
the most approy^ad appliances devised for that purpose, 
such as r^uired bj^ law ; they were (consequently not 
/ guilty of fault, and were not liable. This raises a v^ry 

important question, andxprobably by the rule of the Efag- 
"7^" lish law applicable to th&^case the Company mighjt be 
' held excused, but I believe Our rjile has always been dit- 

ferent. Our Courts have continually held that the/party 
exercising a dangerous occupation is responsible /to his 
neighbours for the damage that mav be caused to tljgm 
by the hazatdoiis nature of such occupation. There was 
the celebrated ^aise of Molson v. St. LoutsJ*) vfhfre sparks 
were communicated from the funnel of a^te 
the owner was held liable. And see Da 
Part 2, p. 187. It is not a case of trespass 
where it v^oul$l be incumbent on the tresp 
fault. 

We conclude that the judgment of the 
holding the Company liable, must be confirmed 

Judgment confirmed 
Geo. Macrae, Q.C., for appellant. 
Geoff rion, Bittfret Sf Dwum for respondeat. 
(J. K.) ^ 

(') Unreported. * , 



boat and 
)^ for 1859, 

the road, 
•ser 10 prove 



iperior Court, 



V 'i 



\1 






■ ■,«■■ 






-\ 



•Si 



OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BlUfCH. gg*^ 

March 24, 1885. 

Cwram DoRibN, C.J., Monk, J., Ramsay, J., Crobs, J., 

Baby, J. 

DAME MARY WYLIE ET- via 

{Defendantin Court below), 
Appellant; 

AND , 

LA ClTfi De' MONTREAL 

{Haintiff in Comt IteUnv), 
f ' • \ * Respondent. 

Taxes— Exemption— Educational Institution— 42 Vic., c. 6, s. 26. 

Hkj-d:— That a school for the education of young ladies, kept by a private 
individual and not under pybli* trontrol, is not an " educational insti- 
tution " within-the exemption of 41 Vict. (Q.), c 6, & 26. „ 

The appeal was from a judgment of the Supetior Court, 
Montreal, Rainville, J., maintaining an action brought 
by the respondent for taxes. The judgment of the Court 
below will be foui^d in 1 Legal News, at p. 26.. 

Aerr, Q.ID. for the Appellant. 

Roy, Q.C., for the Respondent. 

Cross, J. diss. :— , 

The Corporation of the City of Montreal sue Dame Mary 
(ylie, Mrs. Watson, for 1440.80, arrears of taxes on a pro- 
peHv belonging to jier in St. Antoine Ward of the- said 
City. 

Mrs.^atson defends herself upon the ground that the 
property in question is occupied by her exclusively as a 
boarding attd day school for girls, receiving no grant from 
the Corporation and as such is an Educational Institution 
exempt from taxation, in terms of the Educational laws in 
force in the Province of Quebec. 

The facts as pleaded are admitted, especially that the 
property in question has bedn^ for the time the taxes are 
claimed, occupied by ifiB. Watson as a boarding and day 
day school for gir|8.^ ThVqaestion at issue is one purely 



I 






■^ ■ . ^ ~ ■ " ■■■ •< ! <<• 



^ *. : 



*^m^ 



868 



NOMTREAL liAW REPORTa 






i .1 



isas. > 

Wyllt. 

Ijii riti* (Ik 
MiiQlr(>Hl. 



Ci 



uA. 



of law depending on the conHtrnction to be put upon th« 
proviHiunH of the different Statutes in force relating to the 
Hnbject, ' 

Thwjudgtf pn'siding in thi^ Superibr Court oxpresHt'd 
himself to th«' ettect, that the sole question to deterinin« 
was, whether Mrs. Watson's S(;hool was an Kdm^atioiml 
Institution within the terms of the Statute of Quebe<", 41 
Vic, cap. 6, se*'. 26 ; he was of opinion that it was not, he 
accordingly reje(;ted the defence and gave the Corporation 
judgment for the amount demanded. Th* correctness of 
this i«dgment is brought in question by the present 
appcaU^ 

The statutory provisions on the subject are to be 
found ;— first in the Consolidated Statutes- for Lower 
Canada, cap. 15, sec. 7*7. ' 

This section gives three classes of exemptions, the 
sdcond of 4w!iich only is applicable, it reads as follows : 
§ 2. All buildings set apart for purposes of Edncatfon or 
of Religious worship. Parsonage Houses, and all Charitable 
Institutions or Hospitals, in(;orporated by Act of Parlia- 
ment, and the ground or land upon w^iich such buildings 
are erected and also all burial grounds, shall be exempt 
from all rates imposed for the purposes of this act. 

It will be observed that the language used i4||0rtiDg 
exemption is general, it incluH^ all cases pertaining to 
the several classes therein designated. The only exceptiou 
to this is the limitation in the case of Hospitals or Chari- 
table Institutions, which require to he incorporated by 
^Act of Parliament to bring them within the description 
entitling them to exemption. Educational Institutions are 
not confined to those re<ogiiised by the Government uor 
to those obtaining subsidies from the Government ; the kd-l 
by its title purports to be an act respecting Provincial 
aid for Superior Education and Normal and Common 
Schools, but the subjects, of exemption are not confined to 
the property of Government Schools, nor to schools in any 
restricted sense, they are generally of all Educational In- 
stitntions, they go further, they include property set apart 
for Public Worship and Parsonage Houses, also all bnrisi 



^^ ^.. 









COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. jgg 

ground-; They ma«t therefore of necessity include all 
buildings set apart forVui-poses of education and the 
ground upon which suA ^tiildings are erected. Zd thai 
without any restriction orljualiiication whatevLr. 
There is. secondly, the extension, ^f the scope of the 

sZL T A"" 'k' '**' "^ Educational Institutions, by the 
Statu e of Quebec, 41 Vic. c. 6. sec. 2tf. which reads 

ZlTr'\l ^r' E<l"-*--l '"«titution receiving^o 
grant from the Corporation or Municipality, in which they 
are situated, and the land on which they are erected and 
Jts dependencies «h«ll be exempted from Municipal and 
^hool taxes whatever may be the act or charter under 
which such taxes are imposed, notwithstanding any pro- 
vision-to the contrary." h «» y I'ro- 

V It is conceded that the Institution in question receives 
fiio gran from the City Corporation, therefore in this re^ 

til M- *u '*^- ^' P'^^^^"^ ^^'' ^"^ Educational Insti^ 
tation withm the meaning of that section, which is in fact 
the only guestion to be solved. A boarding and day 
^hool for Girls must undoubtedly be presumed to be an 
Mucational Institution, a presumption that must prevail 
antil the contrary is established, and according to the view 
here adopted there is no necessity for its being one of the 
Schools or Institutions recognised by \e Government by 
being subsidised di. otherwise; so long as itJ^s found to - 
answer to the description of an Educational Institution. 
n is within the statutory exemption. So far as there^ 
being a necessity for recognition by Government or any-/ 
public authority, the very ground on which it acquires it«\ 
right of exemption from Municipal ta^es is that it receives 
no aid from the publib, that is. thrdugh the City Corpora- 
ion. It gives value to the public without receiving any 

»!a%'1 7 '?• ^''*''' ^ **' *^« ex^tion from taxation. ^ 
and If that IS denied, it suffers a double injustice. It takeS 
^rt of the burthen of education off the Government 
without recemng any subsidy, and by the judgment of 

VOULQ.R ^ 



UK. 

Wjfll* 

, Monirwd. 



-i-J 

=1 



■i 






% «| 







'% '^ 



IDM. 
WylU 

Moiiirviil, 



^-i 



:^ 



^ 



SSfi 



.-K 



r'J 




870 



MONTRBAt LAW REPORTB. 



•^' 



\> 



H.I 



u 




ThiH ooni^lnsion is farther ■upporteljt'by the analof^T to 
, be druwii fVom tho authority fj^iven to the Haperintendeiit 
of Educutioii to apportion monies from the imx)me fund 
as directed by sec. 6, of said cap. Vt, of the Consolidated 
Statutes for Lower (Canada, which reads as follows : The 
said income fund or such part thereof as the Ck>vernor in 
Council may from time to t|me direct, shall be annually 
apportioned by the Superintendent of Education for Lower 
('anada in such manner and to and amon^; tmyh Univer- 
sities, Colleges, Seminaries, Academies, High of Superior 
Schools, Model Schools and Educational Instttutioiu other 
than the ordinary Elementary Schools, and in such sums 
or proportions to each of them as the Governor in Council 
approves. 

This would seem to indicate that the term " Education^ 
" Institutions " was used in the Statutes in a very general 
sense. Those of them who received appropriations would 
certainly be considered us falling within the description, 
but th'At fact could not of itself give them thej^nk, unlesa 
entitled ip it by the characteristics they possessed of a 
nature to bring them within the description, and these 
characteristics would have the effect of doing so whether 
they got an appropriation or not ; therefore Educational 
Institntions existed, or could exist, in contemplation of 
these Statutes, altogether outride of Institutions organ-. | 
ised or recognised by the Government. The case of Che- 
gory V. Jenkins, 8 Sandford, 418, is not applical)le, it wai 
^ determined by express statutory provisions inapplicable 
.here. As to the difficulty suggested of determining what 
''yas and what was not an Educational Institution, none 
of a serious character could ^<^(^^ at least in cases like the 
present, and if a fraud in this ^pect were attempted, it 
could be easily detected and pit down. I retaember an 
earlier stage of pur educational laws when money raised 
by subscription for a common school enablcHi it' to obtain 
an equivalent grant from the Government. In my 
opinion the judgment of the Superior Court in this caae 
should be reversed and the action of the City dismissed. 



iir..: 



(ff*^' 



'W 



'-ffj'^^i ^^T1|^'|--*-^^i^, ^P-'* 



OOUilT OP QlTFEtrs BRNCH. g^j 

Monk, J. (diu.) :— 

I am also rompclM to ont«r ray dinapnt from th« judff- 
in«nt about to b« pronouncfd in thiit cmm. ThH whole 
question is wh«th«r the wstablishraent of the appolUnt is 
Ml educational ^Mtabliahinent. The ftpp.,llant is a ladv 
highly regpeotable, and her school is a' very re»p«<;table 
institution. She has no assistance from the Government 
or from the municipality.. If. then, this h« .m institution 
for the^idu(!ation of youth, I do not see how it is possible 
nnder the statute, to imposa a tax upon it. It is either 
aii educational institution or it is not. If it is not an edu- 
cational institution, it is a mere privat(» dwelling, a sham 
Is that pretension urged by any one in the present case? 
It 18 called a spe.julation, but is there any proof of that ? 
It 18 said, it is of a temi>orary character. But so is every, 
thing in this world. I, think it would be agre^i hardship 
and more than a hardship, an injustice, and more than an 
injustice, an illegality, to impose a tax upon an institution 
.uch as that of the appellant, ui>on the pretence that it is 
merely temporary. 

Ramsay, J: — . ■ , 

This case offers a good deal of difficulty. The statute 

exempts "every educational institution" from the pay 

ment <>[ municipal and school taxes. The appellants keep 

aschool described as " a private boardgUnd day school for 

girls, a^d It IS the municipal taxatiSS the property so 

used wjiich it is sought by this action to recover. In some 

wnse this is an educational institution, but the real ques- 

lon is whether this> au e4ucational institution within 

the meaning of the Act. I think it is not. The object 

f he law IS to protect against taxation those educational 

metitutions whicJrhave no other raiton (Fitre than the 

purposes of education. The instant they have aiiother 

I »«>Jectthey cease to besolely educational iastittttlous ; their 
revenues may be employed in other ways ftom which the 

I TT^^^^ ^^"''*'' "** benefit,and to protect these revenues 
from taxatiou would simply be to further a private specu- 
l»ti(* at the public cost. For these reasons I am to confirm 



('l(y or 
MoatrMi. 





1 


V ■■-' 




" ' 


'■■■ 1 


*, 


i 


ill 




*' w 



C^^'iiiM^^f^ M 






-i / 



<!lly or 
Muiitr**!. 



879 






^ MONTRBAL LAW RfPOirm . . 




DoRioN, 0. J. :— 

I (i'on<;ur in maintaining th<^ judgment appoalnd fVom in 
th« present ciuio. In 1(446, when thin law came into forue, 
it applied only to Hchool t«xeM. It wan in thoite tui'ina:— 
" All buildingH H«'t apart tor pur|K)iieH of .education, or of 
" rtdigiooN worahip, panKiuage houauH, and all <rharitable 
" inatitutiont or hoapitala inc«(rporatud by Act of Parlia- 
" nittut, and* the ground or land on which Huch buildingi 
" art* ertM^ted, and uUo all buriul groundM, nhufi be exempt 
" from all ratoa impoMud for the pur|M)Hea of thiti Act :" C. 8. 
L. 0. c. 16, s 77. Itf 1878, an amendment wiut mode,- the 
etfect of virhiuh wait to exempt " educational iriHtitutiona " 
from municipal and achool taxes. The question arises, are 
the educational iuHtitutionH mentioned in the amending 
Act the same as the buiiaingnsetup&rtfor purposes of uda- 
cation under the orig^nai*8tatute ? Was it the'intention of 
the legiolaturer to exempt |rom municipal and school taxes 
only those institutions which formerly were exempt from 
school taxes ? The clause gives rise, to considerable difli- 
<iulty ; but we have to put some interpretation on it. It 
would appear from thef terms of the amending act that 
only such institutions as might receive a municipal grant, 
and which do not receive such grant, are exempt. 
Now there is nothing in the municipal law of this country 
that would authorize a municipality to make a grant toj 
private school ; yQ,t it is only in lienof agran^ that exemp- 
tion from taxation is accorded, That a priviate, school ii 
an educational institution is doubtless true in & sense, but 
if we hold that a private school in wKich eight or ten 
children are instructed is exempt from taxation, it would 
follow that a father who has his children instructed in his 
own house would be exempt, because his house would be 
an educational institution. So, too, a lawyer's cffice in 
which three or four students are being instructed woold 
be exempt, for it would be a^a educational institution. Ton' 
might come down to the dancing master, for he would 
perhafMs make i^ similar claim to exemption. It will be 
observed that only hospitals incorporated by Act of Ptf- 
liament are exempt. Why should not private hospitals be : 



• I 



■1?"%* 3» ' l Uf-sm g Lturja :— -wSr 



•i f 






^^■snaB^a^j^-Y^a 



OOtJM? or QURWTB BRKOlf. 



m 



nxompt if priv»t« iiohooli. ar« to b« oi«inpt ? The olaaae 
midoubt<.dly givim rjw to g^ftt difflT.uUy fVom th« way iu 
which It iHdriiwn. hilt F. aniiot think that thoainnfldmont 
of 1878 waii fntoudml to exempt, from iioth municipal and 
-chool tax.*, any iiistitutioiia which Iw-fore wore not e*. 
ninpt from 8. hool taxea. I thweforo think the judmnent 
•h(>.uld b<! coiiflrm<«<t. 

„ ^ . Judgment con fhrmed. 

f^rrr, Carter 4. OohUlnn, f«»T the ApiM^llant. 
R Rtfy, Q. a, for thu R«'8|)oudent. 
(J.K) ^ . 






MM. 
Moninml. 



f 



'^i (I 



".> 



- ^ '■ September 34, 1886: 
Cbrflw. Sir A. A. DonioN.,C.J.,M.)NK, Ramhav&Cro«h, JJ. 

ARCHIBALD A, DICKSON rt. al. 

' {t>«/^antf in. the court belme) 
• ' ♦> AippKLLANts; 

' " ^ - AND . - 

V ■ ■ 

THE HOiTISir'a. T. GALT, ' ' • 

'^ {Plaint^ in the court below) 
„ /\* Rebpondbnt. 

Motion to guofh appedl— Acquiescence—Art. 1180 C.C.P — 
Effect of acquiescence of oni defendant on his co-defendant. 

""rJ^^" -?** ? 'T' ':'■'*'*'" ^^ on»of the ilefend«nt« in an hypothe^ 
i.uL, °" M u '*'"""«"" «ttorney8 after the rendering of the 
udgment, whiq|, condemned them aa joint undivided ownei. of an 

Zr.! /fJ'*'*"*'''". '* °^ ^y "'* P»*«n"ff '» cJai™. «nd before the 
instittition of the appeal, .akin> for delay until aaidMefendant could 

Si„«ir'TrT ^ *!?* <='»'•»'«"'«* promiaing to settle with the 

S,w » '"'"?' '***' "'?'' ^^t't-tod »"» acquiescence in the 

wnSiH^" *? ""Z^* P*"* °' "'** defendant, and that hi. appeal 
would be diBmiaSed on motion. 

*■ "^SHr* ****"*' '^fu*"*'*"* '"' "°* ^^""'^'^y *•>•• «;qaie«^nce m it 
Tt^ *f ^ ^^* f ^ partnejBhip existed between him and his co- 
tJn^^V^r"J*?* ^*'^"* oWnewhip of the immoveable in que.- 
tion), or that he had authoriied the writing of the said letter. 



' 1 
1-1 i 






% 



\ 



^^^ 



L+-^'— - 




^.1'.^*'^ 



\ 






^14 



MONTREAL LA^ REPORTS. 



DOBION, 0. J. : — - ' - ^. 

V'' 

The appellants (defendiiBts in the court below) were 
condemned as joint undivided owners of an imttioveable 
to make a xHlaUsement or pay the respondent's hypothecary 
claim. This judgment was rendered on the 29th November 
K^4. S6me time after the rendering Of the jndgment/and 
before the entering of the appeal, there appears to have been 
an interview between the respondent's agent, Mr. Joseph 
Rielle, and the t^o appellants, Dickson and Wanless, at 
which the latter asked for defay in order to protest their 
garans the Jacques-Gartier Building Society, and to make 
them settle the claim. What the appellants said ai this in- 
terview is not very clearly established, as the affidavits filed 
are somewhat contradictory. Mr. Rielle says that Dick- 
son and Wanless asked for delay to enable them to induce 
the Building Society to pay the judgment, and promised 
that they (appellants) would settle it if the society did 
not. .Dickson and Wanless, on the other hand, say that 
they merely'asked for delay ti) get the Building Society 
to pay, but deny that they ever agreed to settle if their 
garahs did nxA^ With these conflicting accounts before 
us we can hardly say that an acquiescence on the part of 
the appellants can be inferred from these verbal negocia- 
tions. 

The appellant Dickson, iiowever, on .the 19th January, 
' 1885, vnrote a letter to the respondent's attorneys, in ans- 
wer to one written by the latter to Dickson's attorneys . 
threatening execution, in which he renewed his applica- 
tion for jdelay, and explicitly promised to settle with 
the plaintiff if his g-ara^ did nc^. The letter is in the 
Mlowing terms: ^^ 

- ilQntreaI,Janaary 19th, 1885. 

■MiSBBS 'WOTHERSPOON & LaFLBUB, 

Aidvocates, &C., 

.1 v>- ' ■ Q^iT & Dickson. , ' • 

i have jast received a letter from yoa addressed to Meesn Groefri 
shields & Ck>. 



,Voa must remember I potcbaaed the property ftom the JSoildiiV i 






rs. 



3ouTt below) were 
of an imttioreable 
ient's hypothecary 
the 29th November 
the judgment/and 
[>pear8 to have been 

agent, Mr. Joseph 
n and Wanless, at 
ier to protest their 
cibty, and to make 
mts said ai this in- 
3 the affidavits filed 
lie says that Dick- 
ble them to induce 
ent, and promised 

if the society did 
bier hand, say that 
i Building Society 
i to settle if their 
ig accounts before 
ince on the part of 
ise verbal negocia- 

the 19th January, 
I attorneys, in ans- 
ickson's attorneys, 
owed his applica- 
sed to settle with 
le letter is in the 



COURT OF QUEEN'S 6ENCH. 



876 



Society i0i(A vnrranty. The papers are in the hands of my notary having 
« protest, Ac., drawn for service on the Society. So soon as the time given 
them t6 pay the amount expires an^ if they do not, I shall tJieik settle 
wiUi you and look to tlieni for the same. 



Yours truly, 



(Sd) 



A. A. DICKSON. 



There cia^ be no doubt that as far as the appellant 
Dickson i^ concerned this letter constitutes an acquies- 
cence in the judgment, and that he has forfeited his right 
to appeal. It was contended on behalf of the respondent 
that the appellant Wanless was>also bound jSkhis letter, 
inasmuch as he was jointly and' severally jSound with 
Dickson to pay the amount of the condemnation. But 
there does not appear to have been any partnership be- 
tween the appellants (beyond the fact that they- were joint 
undivided owners of the immoveable in question), or 
anythinj^ to authorize. one of thfem to bind the other by 
an iact of renunciation or acquiescence. *, 

We are accordingly of opinion that the motion should 
be granted with costs against Dickson, and his appeal 
dismissed, and that as regards Wanless the motion should 
be rejected without costs. 

Greenshields, McCorkill 4- Ouerin,, for appellants. 

Lgfiem 4* Bidle, for respondent. , ■ . 

Authorities cited by respondent in support of his motion : 

G. G P. art 1180, R Guyot, R4p., Vo. ' Acquiescement' Pbthier. Proc. 

Civ. Na 336, ?2. Jousse, Vol II, p. 441. Merlin, B4p. Vo. 'Acquiesce- 

ment' Dalloz (Alphab.), Va ' Acquiescement' Carr^ «& Chauveau, Vol. 

n, quest 664. Talandier. Traits de I'Appel, p. 76. Toullier, Vol X, No. 

106. Gharbonneaa (t Davis A aL— 20 L. C J. 167. 



188S. 

INokwn 

Ualt. 



'tit 



I, Jannary 19th, 1885. 



issed to Messrs Gieen* 



rty ftom fbe Building' 



.r 



_-i4f,«»^ 



* 



r' 



)•■ 




^ \1 



PC 

f 






Ik: 






ir- 



I ii 



\ i 






r^ s- <«^i^ w-jsM^M' 



- I 



876 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTB. 



\ \- 20mail886. 

Coram Sir A. A. Dorion, J.C, Ramsay, Tessier, Gross 
\ & Baby, JJ. 

1 JOHN McMillan, 

{D^/endpur en Cour iftfirieure), 
Appelant; 

ET 

DAME ANGfcLIQUE HEDGE et vir, 

{Demandeurs en Cour infMmre), 

' ^ INTIM^S ; 

- ET 

THE DOMINION ABATTOIR AND STOCK YARDS 
. COMPANY (Limited), 

{D4fenderesse en Cour inf&rieure), 
Appelante ; 

ET 

DAME ANGfiUQUE HEDGE et vir, 

(Demandeurs en Cour infMeure), 
r, iNTIMfis. 

Servitude de passage— Aggravation— Changement de destina- 
tion—Art. 558 C.C. 

Le propri^taire d'un fonds en culture en vendant deux lots d6tacfa<^ de ce 
fonds avait 6tabli una servitude de passage H pied et en voiture en 
faveur de ces lots sur une autre partie du dit fonds, avec stipulation 
portant que les barrifires fussent tenues fenn^. Sur I'un des lots 
ainsi c6dfyt une rafflnerie d'huile de charbon, et sur I'autre un abat- 
i0, furent subs^uemment ^rig^, et pour I'exploitation de ces deux , 
industries les propri6taire8 des fonds dominants firent passer jour- 
nellement un grand nombre de bestiaux et voitures par le dit pas- 
sage, de telle sort© que les barri^res ^talent totgours onvertes :— 

JvGfi:— (Ramsay & Gross, JJ.,dMii.) '. 

Que dans les circonstances il y avait aggravation de la servitude aux 
termes de Part. 558 C G,'et qqe le propri^taire du fonds servant «t*it 
bien.foiid4 ft demander des dojnmages pour Tabus du droit de pas- 
sage, et une dtfense pour I'avenir de s'en servirpourFexploitation des 
dites industries. 

Les denxjugements dont est appel ont §t§ rendiu par 



1 '! 



/^^;j.^ 



•Sg".-^/^* ■'•'■.^"1 ''"■",!• .f( 






STOCK YARDS 



gement de destina- 



t H6 rendus par 



OOUBT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



:en'S ] 



911 



rhonorable Jujfe Jett6 le 4 septembre 1888, et comme ils 
8ont tous les deux identiques, {mutatis mutandis), le texte 
du jngement dans la premiere de ces causes expliquera 
suffisamment la question soumise au tribunal. Ce juge- 
ment est r6dig6 dans les termes suivants : — * 

" La Oour aprds avoir entendu la plaidoirie contradic- 
ioire des avocats des parties sur le fond du proces mu 
entre elles, pris connaissance des ficritures des dites parties 
faitespour rinstructi9n de leur cause, examine leurs pieces 
et productions respectives, entendu et dument consider^ 
la preuve et sur le tout delib6r6 :— Attendu que lademan- 
deresse est propri6taire d'tin immeuble situ6 enla Villede 
St. Henri, portant No. ITlO, au Cadastre de la paroisse de 
Montreal, et faisant front a la rue St. Henri de la dite 
Ville:— 

" Attendu que cet immeuble est sujet en faveur du 
d6fendeuT k une servitude de passage 6tablie par les titres 
suivants, sfivoir : — 

lo. Un acte de vente en date du dix-sept septembre 
mil hnit cent cinquante-deux par Q^rmain Lefebvre a 
Michael Reilly, et 2o. un acte de vente du deux mars 1863 
pV le m6me Lefebvre k Patrick Carroll, cette servitude : 
6tant 6tablie dans lei termessuivants, savoir : " With the 
" right for ever for the said purchaser his heirs and assigns 
" of a passage through the lot of land of the said vendor 
" fronting the public road, as well on foot as with carriage, 
"in cammon with Baid Reilly, his heirs and assigiis A«nd 
" the said vendor his lieirs and assigns, to communicate 
" from the hereby soldi lot of land to the said public road 
" leading from Montreal to Lachine, and to the charge by 
" the said purchaser his heirs and assigns of keeping in 
" good order of repair^ the road of the said passage at 
" common expenses with the said Reilly his heirs and 
" assigns as they thought proper between them, and also 
" to the charge to the staid purchaser of keeping the gates 
" of said passage shut.'f 

" Attendu que le on^ septembre 1873 le d6fendeur a 
acquis de Michael Oar^U partie du teipan en fjaveur du- 
qnel a 6t6 6tabli le drmt de pajisaiire si 




188S. 

MoMillMi 

m 

Hedge. 



y<\ 










--^A 



t 



i ' 



'A) 



i 4 



1 1 



( ' 



;l ^' 



ii' 

1 

■I 







(f- 



I- 



ii«s. 

MoMillu 

A 

Uedte. 






878 MOliTBEAL LAW REPOHm 

'>-. A- '■ . ■■>■■■■ ' 

" Atten^n qui& la demanderesse ponrsnit maintenant le 
dfefendeur, all6guant que lors de IV'tablissement de cette 
servitude le terrain en faveur duquel le dit droit de paa- 
8ago 6tait Btipul6 6tait exploits pour des fins de culture 
exclusiveraent, qu'il 6tait convenu que le propri6taire du 
fonds dominant fermerait les barridres comme susdit, et 
que nfeaumoins le d6fendeur lo. Refuse de fermeries bar- 
rieres uonobstant mise en demeure formelle A cet 6gard, et 
2o. Aggrave la dite servitude en se servant du passage sus- 
mentionnfi, non pour des fins de culture, mais pour la 
faffinerie de I'huile de charbon et le commerce de cette 
huile qu'il exerce dans des proportions considerables sUr 
le dit terrain par lui possfcd6 comme susdit : et qu'elle 
condut en consequence sk ce que le d6fendeur soit li-nitf 
i\ ce que lui reconnait so^i titre et condamn6a quatre v'ents 
piastres pour la negligence et Tabus susdits ; 

" Attendu que le d6fendeur nie la restriction all^gn^ 
de son droit : qu'il soutient que celui-ci est absolu et que 
par suite il pent se servir du dit passage pour I'exploita- 
tion de son terrain & quelque fin qu'il I'emploie, que d'atl- 
leurs'les constructions par lui 61ev6es sur son dit terrain 
pour les fins de son comiQerce ont 6t6 b&ties au vu et su 
de la demanderesse et'de-^on oonsentement tacite : que 
le passage en qlaestion est ouf ert au public depuis trente 
ans et que la demanderesse n'%anjourd'hui aucun int^rfit 
k restreindre I'emploi qu'en fait le d§fendeur, enfin que la 
demanderesse n'a so^fiert aucun dommage k raison des 
faits dont elle se plaint ; 

" Consid^rant qu'en principe celui qui a un drbit de 
passage par un fonds de terre ne pent, en changeant I'ex- 
ploitation du fonds doininant et y 61evant des construc- 
tions nouvelfes attributes k I'exercice d'une indnstrie non 
pr6vue par les parties lors de la constitution de la servi* 
tude, soumettre le fonds servant k la circulation addition- 
nelle causae par ces constructions et cette exploitation 
nouvelle;^ 

•" OonsidSrant en outi^ que les circonstances dans les- 
quelles se trouvent les heritages au moment de I'Stablis' 
sement de la se^itude et Is^iaisession qui a lieu imm^ 



T 



.>5{ 










COURT OP QUEEira BENCH. 



8*79 



diatement aprds. doivent, dans le silence du titre, servir k 
expliquer I'inje^ion des parties et k d6terminer I'fetendue 
dn droi^ acctdrd6 ; . 

" (3oi^8id6r^t tju'il est 6tabli en pi^uve dans Tesp^ce, 
que lors de Tefablissement du droit de passage suqdit en 
1862, l!h6ritage eu favour duquel ce droit 6tait aocorde 
n'6tait lexploit6 que pour des fins de culture et qu'il a con- 
tinue Ue retre ainsi jusqu'tl Fachat qu'en a fait le d6feu- 
deur ek 1878, mais que depuis lors le d^feudeur y a erige 
des usines et Mtisses considerables pour les fins de son 
indnstrie et de son commerce, savoir : la raffinerie et la 
vente des huiles de charbon, et qu'il y d6bite sa dite mar- 
chandise en grandes quantit^s.ce qui occasionne uue all6e 
et venue constante par le dit passage' d'uiie moyenne par 
jour de quinze i vingt voitures lourdement chargfies ; 

" Gonsid^rant qu'il- est de plus prouv6 que cette circu- 
lation est beaucoup plus considerable et plus on^reuse 
quenelle qn'aurait n^cessit^ I'exploitatioar en culture du 
dit fonds de terre du ddfendenr, et qu'elle constitue en 
cons^uence<4ane aggravation notable de la servitude que 
ni les titres, ni les circonstances des heritages ne justifient ; 

" Gonsid^rant en outre que la demanderesse est aussi 
bien fond6e k se plaindre de la negligence et du refus du 
dSfendeur et de ses employes de fenner la barriere par elle 
posee k I'entrfie du dit passage ; 

" GonsidSrani enfin que le d^fendeur n'a pas prouVe 
que le dit passage ait 6t6 6uvert au public depuis trente 
ans, ni qu'il ait eu l6 droit d'en user coinme il I'a fait ; 

". Kenvoie la defense du. d^fendeur et accordant les con- 
clusions de la demande, declare lo. que le d^fendeur n'a 
droit de se servir^du passage susdit que pour I'exploitation 
de son fonds p<>it| des fins de cultilre et de jardiiiage seu- 
lement ; et 2o. qii'il est tenu en exerfant son droit susdit 
de fermer les barrieres dndit passage; et en consequence 
ordonne et enjoint an d^fendeur de ne se servir k I'avenir 
du dit passage que pour les fins de Texploitation par la 
culture du fonds par lui po886d6, lui faisant defense et 
prohibition d*en user pour les fins des usines et'constrnc- 
tions par lui 6rig6e8 poxa son commerce d'huile ; 



in.5 . 

MeMillan 
Hedge. 






\; '» Ik 



J.' \ 



980 



'■^•wj. '■-'I* N''^ 



MONTREAt LAW RETORTO. 



JfeMlllan 



Ordonne en outre an dit dfifoijdeur d'avoir k fermer 



,.., A 



les barri^res du dif "passage lorsqu'i 

coiidamne le dfefendeur a raison de .«„^„ t,„. .„, .«,i „e 
son droit A payer & la deraandorosse Iftisomme de cent 
piastres d« dommages et les d6peni. do I'^Jtion telle qu'in 
tent^e, etc." ^ • 



IWiiservira: et enfin 
TalbM par lui fait de 



., En Appkl ; 
Ramsay, J. {dins.):— ^ 

The appellants in these two ciises and^ tho respbndent ,> 
have a common auteur, who granted to^^^ellants by 
different djeds, their heirs and assigns, forever, (the right 
of way, m jits amplest form, oVer llhe property now held 
by respondent, to communicate from the land, sold by 
him to appellants, to the public ro^d leading from Mont- 
real to^jAchine. The purchasers Were to keep t*ie road 
in good repair at their common expense, as they thought 
proper ^tween thegj, and they wete to keepthe gates of 
the said Wage shut. Respondent complains that they 
have aggra\uted the servitude, the one by establishing an 
oiI-f»gtory, the other by erecting a slaughter-house, thus 
causing a greaiihcrease in the use of the servitude, and 
that they leave Hhe gate open, and for these two causes 
she demands damages, and also.takes conclusions forbid- 
ding appellants to u^e the right of way as they are doing 
for the utility of theSe works. Respondent founds her 
claim on ar4,*58 C. C, and on the authority oV depisions 
of writers un^r the Code Napoleon. ''■'"Y 

^ It must be admitted that many of the modern 'FrW4' 
vtTTiters maintain, and some of the courts of appeal have 
hel% that the great me may amount to an aggravation. 
The theory seems to be this, that the intention of "the 
grantor must be presumed to be that the grant was for 
the present use of the property. So it was held, that 
where the business Was changed from retail to wholesale, 
causing tljpreby a considerable increase of traffic, it was an 
aggravation of the ^servitude. Sirey, 26me partie, p. 44, 
and the cases cited in the note. / 

This juriBprudence and the opiiki^f writers is worthy 



1 hm^i^, 









OOUBT OF QtrfiElfS BENCH. 



881 



of great consideration, for the articles of Code Napoleon 
and of our Code do not appear to me to be materially 
different. But it is only binding upon us in so far as it 
18 conformable to principle. And in the first place, it is 
to be remarked that it does not stand uncontradicted. 
Laurent, vol. 8. §J. 280, ,281, 282, 284. protests against 
this exceptional mode of dealing with the intention of. 
parties to a contract. Also there are conflicting decisions 
ia number of which areimentioned by Uurent in the para- 
graphs Already qfioted. Secondly, it seems contrary to 
the terms of the Code Napol6on, art. 686, " L'usage et I'e- 
"tendue des servitudes se rdglent par le titre qui les 
" constitue ; d difaut de titre, par les rdgles ci-apr6s." Art 
546 of our Code is equally explicit. Thirdly, it is against 
the old law and, admittedly, incompatible with the doc- - 
tnne of Dumoulin. If so strange an exception to the 
mode of inrerpreting contracts had existed, there would 
have been plenty of traces of it ; but the writers on pre- 
sumptions are silent as to this one. It would be a most 
gratuitous presjimption, in a case like the present, that 
the purchaser of a property enclavie, who also acquired 
the right of way to reach his land from the highway 
should bargain with th^ vendor for a rig^ of way less 
extensive than his right of property in the land, Of 
course it as all a matter of contract, so if not stipulated it 
does not exist where une terre enclavSe is sold. Basnage, 2, 
486. Fourthly, it seems to be specially opposed to all the 
general principles recognized as relating toser viiudes ^or 
mstance; a servitude is a right due to the hMtngtidaminant 
rather than to the owner. Cujas, 4, c. 881, B. Plainly it 
would be a contradiction of that doctrine to say that the 
^accidental use of the owner should control the right ac- 
corded to the hMtage dominahi: Article 556 of our Code 
appears to in^^o preclude the possibility of contending 
that the greater use, by itself, is an aggravation of the 
servitude; and article 558 only appHesJo a particular 
^ase, the principle recognissed by art. 646. There is 
Another principle which seems to me to meet the 
Pculty, which, evidently, has started the modem 



! 



MoMUUd 
lledgv. 






^WSr 



..rs- 



T^"!' 




(WS^'W I 



imms:'^s0'. 



&. 



882 



MONTREAL LAW BEPORm 





,1 « i 



ISM. 

MoMlllm 

Uxlt*. 



doctrine— that is, the hardship of the increaii«d use. 
It in said, that the parties who granted a right of way 
to a farm, might not have contemplated the building 
of a row of houses. That w purfixtly true of many things 
besides a servitude ; and it is particularly true of servi- 
tudes, us of all incorporeal rights. They belong a</ condic- 
tionem tnterti, non ad certi. Oujas 4, c. 646 D. They can- 
not be counted or measured or weighed, ;' Certum non 
" est nisi substantia, accidentia, non certa hinc fit, ul 
" qui st^rvitutes stipuletur." Cujas 10, c. 641, A. 

AnotheTT point was sligWly insisted on, that the right 
of the road could not be unlimited without destroying the 
rights of those having a common right. I am inclined to 
think, as a general proposition of law, that an action 
might lie <o define the extent of the use provided the 
plaintiff could show that this fair use was obstructed. All 
commoners are liable to such restrictions. Even. there 
may be the mis-use of a street, altfaongh each act does not 
amount in itself to anuisance: Of cojarse it would require 
a. very extreme case to give a tiprht^faction, and therefore 
in towns municipal authplrlt^.T^^lates traffic so as to 
avoid a collision of rights^ IPrpqessions for rejoicings and 
funerals are provided for by liW on these principles. But 
in this action no question of conflict of enjoyment is 
raised. It is distinctly alleged that at the time of the 
sale and of the constitution of the servitude the land sold 
was " eh culture" That since then the owner had con- 
structed " une rqffinerie tChuile de charbon, des usines, etc. 

" Que jHtur les fins de cette usine et de ce commerce, le dijm- 
deur se sert constamment du dit passage sur le terrain de lade- 
manderesse." " ^ue le difendewr abuse par ce moyen du droit 
de servitude qui lui a 4t4 accords et en rend Vusage beauctmp plus 
on^reux pour la d^enderesse." ^ "~ 

Wherefore it is prayipd that the defendant te forbidden 
to use the road, not so mu(;h, but at all, for the purposes 
of the said ttsuie, etc. 

One other point was mentioned : that the excessive use 
of the road injured the road-way. But respondent has no 
interest in this. She has agrded that Reilly & Carroll 



.., u 



COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH. 



888 



m 



should keep the road in repair at their common ezpenae, 
" aa thoy thouj^ht proper between them." It doea not 
Hoem that they have disagreed about this, or troubled hut 
in any way about it. 

The action us regards the abutting of the gate ia evi- 
dently a niake- weight ; but strictly speaking it i« founded. 
The answer of appellants is absurd. I am to reverse aa 
to the use of the right of way ; to maintain as to the 
Hhutting of the gate, and to reform the decision as to 
damages, giving the respondent |10 for the neglect to shut 
the gate, costs against appellants in the court below and 
in their favor In the court of appeal in each case. 

SiB A. A. DoRiON, J. C. :— 

La question qui se pr^seute dans ces deux causes est 
d'une importance considerable. Le propri6taire d'un im- 
meuble sitn6 4 St. Henri avait vendn deux portions d^ 
cet immeuble aux auteurs des /jppelants par deux litres 
diff6rent8, en fctablissant en faveur des acheteurs une ser- 
vitude de passage dans les termes suivants : 

" With the right for ever for the said purchaser, his 
" heirj and assigns, of a passage through the lot of land 
" of the said vendor, fronting the public road» as well on 
" foot as with carriage, in common with the said Beilly, 
" his heirs and assigns, and the said vendor, his heirs and 
" assigns, to communicate from the hereby sold, lot of land 
"to the said public ro^d, leading from Montreal to La- 
'^chine, and to the charge by the said purchaser, his heirs 
" and assigns, of keeping in good order of repairs the road 
" of the said passflge at common expenses with the said 
" Reilly, his heirs and assigns, as they thought it proper 
" between them, and also to the charge to the said pur-. 
" chaser of keeping the gates of said passage shut." 

Les acheteurs de ces deux fonds dominants, les ont sub- 
86quemment vendus, I'un d la Oompagnie des Abattoirs, 
et I'autre k McMillan qui y a 6tabli une raffinerie d'huile 
de charbon. L'intim6e, propridtaire du fonds servant, 
poursuit les appelants pour avoir aggrav6 cette servitude 
de passage, et pour avoir n6gU^ de former les barriires 






MoMlltM 
Hadct. 



\. 



I I". 






^ — 



k. JU— »^_, ^rvk t^Jp^iiig:-u\£.i^^ji^^-^^^'^ti' 



•i*'iMS;itoF«»*^j 






m 



•^ c 



« ■'" ' iw^^^'P^ f wiP^ 



MoMlllMi 



* f «i«; , 



• \ 



■a,- 



884 



MONTBEAL LAW BEFOBTHl 



nonolMtant miiitf un domuare. 11 serait difAoile d« trou- 
vwr deaz industrieii dont le voiiiDage serait plm domma- 
• geahlu (\mi dellon d«B apiM^antH, tnalH va ii'eHt pan 14 ce dout 
MO plaint riatiinfu. Ellu leur dit : vuua avuz uu droit do 
poHHagH fMiur lua flna poarleaqaellea il u dt6 ^tabli par 
I'adte (^onatitutif de la Hurvitudo, mais non paa iK)ur leu 
Hub du cbnin«erce que voaa y avVa Bab86qtiMmm»nt Mabli. 
II HHt en preuve que lorti cle I'^tabliMHtinumt de cette ser- 
vitude tout le terrain vendu aux noram6(i Ileilly et Car- 
roll (qui ont vendu aux apiMlauts) 6tait en culture. 

I^ question est done de savoir si Tusage que les appe- 
lants font maintenant de ce droit de paasage constitue en 
droit une aggravMionLde la drtn^ servitude. 

Pour 8(> faire une id6e de I'^tendue d^ I'usage de ce pas* 
sage, par les appelauts pour les fins de leurs industries 
rcBfkictiveB, il suffit de li¥e la deposition de Louis Oagn6, 
nn des t^moins de la demanderesse. ( Voif TAppendice da 
Factum de Tiutim^e, p. 18). Ce t6moin 6tablit que le 18 
deccmbre 1888 il a passfe par le dit chemin 449 bdtes et 
voiiures, et le jour suivant k peu pris 440 b6t«i et voitu- 
res. \ C'est-A-difequeee passage dont les barridres devaient 
dtre lerm^es a donn6 passage k presque 460 bdtes ou voi- 
tures par jour! Les appelants pr6tendent que oela ne 
consutue pas une aggravation de la servitude, attendn 
que Ipela n'en change pas la nature. Mais ce n'est pas 
ainsi que je comprends la loi. L'artic|e 668 de no^reOode 
civil je ^t comme suit : " De son c6t6, celui qui a un droit 
" de servitude ne pent en user que^uiVant son titre. sans' 
" poumr faire, ni dans le fonds qui doit la servitude, ni 
^ " danii celui k qui elle est due, de changement qui aggrave 
" la cc ndition'du premier." Les codificatenrs nous appren- 
nent dans leur rapport (Liv. II, Tit. IV, art. 68) que cet 
article est conforme au Code Napoleon, k I'ancien droit fran- 
fais et an droit romain. Dans lecas actuel nous avons one 
^iervitide crfe6e par la volontS de I'homme, et nous^devons 
teclieicher Tintention de'celui qui I'a 6tablie pour determi- 
ner I'Mendilbde la joTiissai^qn'il a vouluaccor^er. Demo- 
lombe (vol. XII : Np. 866) qui suit I'opinion deDomat, pense 
que les besoins da foi^i^s dt>minant doivent 6tre appi^cies 



*s,. . 



p? J?'" 



nt son titre, sans' 



\ 




"^pt^^ji'r 



COURt or QUEENS BENCH. 



-T-j^i-^i^jrTf^'f.' 



886 



eu 6gard i^UflUt otk 11 iie tronvait an moniflnt de I'Atablia- 
•ementde la Jiervitude. " CJ'««t quVti wffet." dit-il. "la 
' 8ervita<l« m^ «l6riv« que du co«mmtem.mt «ii>ro»«« oU 
' tacite, iiuivaiit l« (;ai, du propri6tair« du IbndM servant ; 
' or, (!e propri^»tair« ti'a 6vid«miin^tit «!oiiB«nti i\ la nervi- 
' tude qu« iMiur le ».«rvi<;e «t I'eiploitation du fonds domi- 
" uaut, tol qu'il I'tt vu aa moment oil la servitudo a <^t6 
''6tabliu. 

" Si done, par oiemplo, vouh avez sur mon fondn un 
" droit do pui«a>?o on d« patiNage pour telle maison d^ter- 
" min6e, voub ne pournm pa« Tfiteadre & une autre mai- 
" son, Hoit que vouh eu fu88ioi5 dejA propri6taire au moment 
"de la constitution de la servitude, soit que vous I'ayea 
" b&tie ou achetet) di^puis. 

" Autnsment on pourrait faire ainsi, dit encore fort juii- 
"tement Dumoulin. dun .hemin priv6 de Uinere privato, 
"une sorte do.chemin vicinal ou public, »«« t,fci/ia/M vd 

ThuUier, (vol. Ill, No. 650) s'exprime dAns le m6me 
sens. " Le. propri6taire d'un Ibnds de torre, en faveur 
" duqtfel serait 6tabli un droit de passage, ne pourrait, en 
" y faisant bfttir, garder le Ibnds servant du passage n6- 
" cessairo pour le service d'uno maison. car il est 6vident 
"que le passage journalier de tons les habitants d'qine 
" maison, est plus on6reux que le passage pour le service 
. " d'un fonds de terre. 

"Oe serait, d'ailleurs, changer la qualitfe du droit, et 
"convertir une servitude rurale en servitude urbaine J ce 
"qui serait contraire a la loi de la concession et an prin- 
" cipe qui en derive, qu'on ne pent, en aucune maniftre, 
" aggraver la condition du fonds servant." 

Voir eodem senm, Aubry ^ Sou, vol. Ill, page 28 ; J4ir-' 
dems, vol. I, No. 286. - ! 

LaureHt, (vol. VIII, Nos. 261, 262, 268, 264) n'admet la 
docfrine de Dnmoolin qu'aveo certaines restrictions. " Le 
"principe implique une servitude restreinte aux besoins 
"du fonds, ce qui suppose une servitude limit^e, dont il 
y&&t de preciser la limite. Or, il se pent qu'une servi- 
" tude soit etablie en vue des besoias actuels et futurs • 
Vou I. Q. B. 28 • ' 



MeMllton 










^.Vil 


"n 


/ 




- 




■ ■ 






.t^w;L.:Lf|^if;iitii|^ifitf " ' 










V 



< «, 



M6 



,L LAW RRFORTR 



Vm 



McMlIlM 




" dans c« vm, il ti« p«ut piuM «tr»i quttatioii d«, r«iii)|Mtoh«r 
" U m^Brv «leN b.>«oitiM ik r6i»oqa« oik elle a «tA »ioniutii««, 
" It faut diw pluM 4 moiiia quo In nt^rvitudH iih ■oii linii- 
" t(si^ A uii iiNAgH paF«i«'uli«»r^il faut l'iiU«»rpr6t«r dans un 
" Menu uxti^UHir plutot <(u« daiiM un nmiih rmtri< tif. Kn 
" effwt, le« iMwoiriM ttctuoln Hoiit <»»ux du projtri^tairo d<> 
" rh6rit»ff« dominant ; or, la servitudo mi Htipukn., oim 
" «n vuo du (omln, don*- en vu*' d« bttMoint viiriables." 
(No. 262). Kt pluN loin (No. 208 ««*>.) c« mAni«t an- 
tenr ajoutH : " f^ qut^Mtion d« Mavoir ii'il y a agj^rnvi^ioii 
•• eMt donr 4*fMienti«dlHniunt un« qu«>Hli(>n <1« fait. OWt _1 
" juge du fait tk appr^ittr ledomniaff*^ qui r^Hult« dtf ohan- 
" ffcmont Tait par In propri^taire du fondi«~donii4iani. 8'il 
" cooHtatc quo le rhan^cmunt n'««t pa« do naturo A nuire 
" au f(>nd»« aorvant, la df^ihion no pen I *tro r6formfeo par 
" la cour do cassation. " Lauront oxamiuo onauito la quou- 
tion du <hangemont do la deatination d'uno inaiaon, par 
ezemple, quand une raaiaon liourgeoiao a-6t6 tranarorm^t 
en caft ou en «ercle,j^il decide, ae bAsaiit aur doa arr^U 
qu'il cite, quo I'ag^pfation eat inconteatablo. 

NouB croyona ausai avec Laurent que la queation doit 
Aire d6cid6e d'apria lea oirconatancea et d'aproa I'iutention 
doa partiea. 

Et dana I'eapdce actnelle npua croyona que Tintention 
du propri6taire qui a 6tabli la aervitude dana lea termes 
pr6cit6B, avet^ une atipulation expreaae quo lea barriJirM 
fuaaent ferm^ea, ne pouvait paa 6tro do permottre lo pas- 
sage de Toitures et de beatiaux tonte la joum6e. La ma- 
joritfe de c^tte cour est d'opinion qu'j 
actuel une 6norme |||gravation de fa 
aervitude; et quo lea deux jugementaj 
yent dtre confirm^ avec dSpena. 

^ Jngements confinn68. 

navtd$0H, Cross gf Cross, pour I'appelant J. McMillan. 
,%^- McC&rdy pour I'appelante la Cie. dea Abattoirs. 
'" %Mo, TfiUon Sf LancM, pour rintim^. 





;?■ 














'VI. 



^^ 



COURT or qur.KM'B Ui^tiA 



."^ 






-4JMB ' ^Hl^t 
"WW: ■•¥ w; 



^^v 



•y W, WW, 
Owrtm DoRKiw, OJ., Monk. Ra'mmat. Cwm, Baiiy, J J 

DONALD MAOMASTKIt kt ai. • 

{U^imiantt in th« Cuttrt heUno), 

Al>l'RLI«AN'ni 

¥lIOMAH W MOKl^ATT 

{l^mHtiJf in the Court helow), 

Rkhi-oniirnt 
Contrart^Time fitr JiUjUment. ^ 



fV 



.•»• 









M , iiK«iiiit Whom • r.i/rt/.« hud iMuwl, <U«|NH<it«Hl • v\m\m In tlio huiKb of . 
ailwIlHtite, tim •Km«innntMnKth*tlfh« ii|>p««f3«l with hi* Iwil at 
Ui«ir om<w by nlnvnii o'clmk on th<« folluwinK inofninK lh<i <<h«M|ii« 
wiM to be'n«turntMl ; if h«t <liil not apiNHtr, Iho cIwiiuh wua t4» U» iipidiwil 
Ui th« iMiyiiMMit of di.hl HM.I (-.i^ta. Tlioro wiw » (xinllirt of wvl.lonm 
m t<> Ahothnr M. ii|>|iiinn«l utOtnvon or 11 f«w inlnn(4M nfUir, nn<i (lui 
the minority of th«i Court vi.iwejUhe «vl.lon(w) on» of Ihi* hondMmun 
nKHH^i i>|'"'> wiiM not ptviMint. VS 

Hmi.ii (by tbii wbolo C<rtirt) : That 11 ilnirninm of h few ininutMi in « con- 
trwit of Thin nnturu wm t^io aliKlit t« Iw maU»ri«l, and wnuUrnot lirtve 
JiMtiflml tlio Apr>li<-Atlon of thn climiuA to th« imyniont of tlio d»'.|»t und 
wmta, if M. biul u|>|wftnHl with liin bnil an «Knt^: but luUi,hy th«« 
majority of the Court, tho abwuon of one of ^lie 'bon«iMmen wm a 
noiiMjompliancs^ with tlio awmtmimt, which JuaUdtMl tho n|>pllcation 
of the che<iuo to the payment of the debt and ooata. 

The judgment appealed from was rendered by. th^ 
Superior Cdtifrt, Montreal, Doherty, J., Dec. 29, 1888, 
maintaining j|^| Action against the appellants, and con^ 
demning theiii ||cbaving wrongfiilly retained the snin of 
1400 belonging to th*» respondent, this sum being the 
#™o'»^of a cheque placed by respondent in their hands 
on thfe'Weningof 11th June, 1888, on an agreement as under- 
stood by appellants that if he failed to appear with his bail 
next morning by eleven o'clock, to put in bail in a capias 
case taken against him by one MftLaughlan, the appel- 
lants, who were McLaughlan's jittomeys, should apply 
the cheque ik satisfaction of debt and costs. ^ Moffatt, as 
"was contended, not having appeared up to'eleven o^clock, 
the cheque, was applied in pur<«tianc« of the agreement. 
N.W. Drenholme for appellants. 



Joseph DouttuSt Q.C., forjetpon^eafc 



\ vi 



t . 



I > ,t 



4,. 



.||> 



% 






^1 



:;..<.■ 



1 I 



law.' ' 

Maoniuter 

k 
■ Mbtlatt 



888 



^JiOlJihEAL LAW REPORm 



( 



:r 






SiK 



■1 , 



Cross, J. (rfijw.):— * 

The defQndaajts (appellants), a firm of advocates and at- 
tortieys, on behalf of C. H. McLaughlan. took out a'ct^mu 
against the hoW respondent Moffatt, who, thereunder, was 
brought or allow^ to come to appellants' office, where he 
explained his desire not to be obliged to go to gaol, but to 
have temporary arrangements made by leaving in appel- 
lants' hdnds a cheque to cover the amount, endorsed by a 
' friend (McLean), until he should put in bail, which he 
agreed to be ready to do by eleven o'clock nqxt morning. 
The appellants were reluctant to a<!cede to this arrange- 
ment, but after a time consented to it. A cheque' Was. left 
for 1400, ample to covey McLaughlan 's claim and costs. 
Next tlay MoffaSt wished to put in bail and get back his 
cheque, which was refi^sed, the appellants contending 
that the agreement was that if Moffdtt did not present • 
himself with his bail at their \ihe appellants') office 
before eleven o'clock, next morning, they Would have a 
right to cash the cheque and apply the proceeds in 
payment of McLaughlan's debt, interest and costs ; that 
Moffatt failed to be in attendance with Ws bail before 
* eleven o'clock ; they had therefore a right to refuse the , 
jetum of the cheque aiad apply the proceeds as above. 
The respondent contends that he had complied with the 
" tetms of the understanding, and had been present with 
his bail before eleven a.m. On this contention a diver- 
sitybf evidence has been produced— that of the two par- 
ties conflicting. The Sujjerior Court considered that the 
^ dispute should not be governed by the •xnci official time, 
but that if Moffatt,-by a reference in good^fwth to watches 
which might be fairly consulted as the Post Office clock, 
came within the time, it was sufficient,, ^^at Court con- 
sequently maintained an action againsfethe appellants' 
firm of attorneys for the amount at tflfeheque, which 
judgment has given rise to the appeal. T 

First, see what the contract was, and Moffaft's duty 
thereunder. Mr. Macmaster states very distinctly that 
the understanding was that Moffatt was tp be at appel- 
lants' office with his baiQ before eleven o'clock qu the 

: ; / ■ 



P T-**73'*'T™'f'X! i 



tX>XJtei OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



889 



morning of the 12th of June, 1888, in default of which 
appellants would have the right to apply the cheque. 
His partner, Mr. Weir, does not state the agreement in 
the same terms. (See appellant's evidence, p. 28.) He 
says the arrangement was that if Mr. Moffatt did not pre- 
sent himself before eleven o'clock the following morning, 
„ for the liurpose of giving security, that then we, the 
agents for McLaughlan, would have the tight to apply 
the proceeds of that cheque in payment of the debt and 
costs. ~" 

The respondent!^ evidence goes to shew that the agree- 
ment was that Moffatt was to be at appellants' office by 
eleven a.m., not before eleven a.m., to put in bail,, but 
does not attach any distinct consequences to the default. 
Noif with the divided evidence as regards the time of 
bail being present, although it were considered, for^the 
sake of argument, that appellants' evidence is the'most 
distinct on the pointiiyet it does not seem to me that the 
. consequence of this bail beiftgtf^o or three minutes late 
involved the forfeitjare of Moffatt's right to get back the 
cheque if ready to put in bail. The cheque was in place 
of the ordinary b&ij, until it should be furnished. It is 
proved beyond dispute that Moffiitt was present at Mr. 
Mac^naster's office before the expiry of the fixed delay, 
and that he had then secured the assent of sufficient bail. 
It was not for the appellants to accept or refuse that bail ; ' 
this was the business of the Sheriff,— and if may be said 
that Moffatt shodld have gone to the Sheriff and put in 
bail ; but it is in proof that he offered to do sq, or go to 
gaol, and demanded the return of his cheque. It was 
then at appellant's risk to return or not to return the 
writ as he saw fit ; had< they returned it, Moffatt might 
have put in bail and thus secured Tiis right to contest the" 
ll^mand. If they did not return it, they rested the case 
TEliitirely uJk)!! the agre^ent that they should apply the 
cheque to pay the debt, interest and costs. I think no 
such agreement has been made out, nor can it readily be 
presumed. , .Moffatt could not be supposed to be willing 
to abandon his right to d ispute the plMnHf fi^ p lo,,» ^ ^a 



. t 

IMS. 

MMmMtor. 

Moffatt. 



y 



/ 






:._.„,_. i.L„_j: 






\'i 



M', 




' "^ 



} ■ 



-iS^5'^^7"«»i^^T ?^''ljfr||"n^^«!f3<iy^. 



\ 






890 



MONTREAL lAW REFOBTB. 



18M. 

Msomaator 

MoOiitt. 



lb 



the rigOTons proceeding of coptos. Had he been willing 
to do 80, he woinld have rather at once given the money 
as a payment. Then there was a surplus', which was ten- 
dered back in th^orm of a cheque and refused. This is, 
perhaps not, striOTy speaking, a valid tender as the law 
stfinds, although I certainly think it ought to be. The 
check wa%. not, in fact, applied when MofTatt was ready 
to put in bail ; and if even he had been clearly later than 
he promisied, his right to put in bail and contest the debt 
was not forfeited. I would scarcely approve of Mr. Mac-" 
master making it as a personal matter. H« insisted oh a 
retraction being made of stnai^g supgojsed imputltion on, 
his conduct in the matter as a condition to his making a 
concession, the nature \ of, which does not clearly appear, — 
and Mr. McLean, Mr. M^ffatt's friend, was willing to go i | 
a certain length in order to arrive at a friendly unde^ 
standing, but no agreement was come to. Any supposed 
admission of McLean, which was anything but conclu- 
sive, did not bind Moffatt. 

Again, as regards the supposed contract relative to the 
cheque left by Moffatt which was endorsed by McLeaA. 
If evidence verbal is admissible as of a mercantile con- 
tract, the only evidence of it is by the parties interested- 
one defendant in favor of another ; and suppose Mr. Mac- 
master's evidence is suificient to exonerate Mr. Weir,. Mi*. 
Weir's is not sufficient to exonerate Mr. Macmaster. He 
does not say that by the contract Moffatt was to pre- 
sent himself with his bail before eleven o'clock, but he 
was to present himself before eleven o'clock for the pur- 
I)ose of giving security. Now, Mr. Hutchinson proves 
that he recollected seeing Moffatt early in the morning of 
the 12th sitting in the outer office ; earlier in the morning 
than half-past ten he saw Moffatt sitting in the outer 
office. (See p. 36, appellants' appendix.) So that, accord- 
ing to Mj^. Weir's evidence, he was at least half an Konr 
before his time ; but if Mr. Macmaster could make evi- 
dence for himself and the bail required to be there with 
him, then it depended on the question of minutes or 
Heconds . Mr . Hntnhin s on sa y s [ a t p . 34 , 1 . 4 2J :— .At the 






i^m^^' 



Oapm OF QUEBM'8 BENCH. 



1' 






891 



time that Mr. MoriSitt came in with his two securities, it 
was three t^J^ur minutes after eleven— at least three, of 
this he was positive. Moffatt was then there himself 
before half-past ten, and was there, with his two securi- 
ties within three or fo»r minutes of eleven on the 
morning of the 12th of June. No personi had been 
agreed upon as the bail. McLean had already given 
security by endorsing th? cheque. He and Hopkins were 
there offering themselves as bail. (See p. 7, appendix.) 
Ijepeated the assertion that we were here to fulfil our 

JgSgement. Mr. Stewart had been secured in addition, 

^^^l^is name had not been communicated. 

% *^>"^*^« judgment of the Superior Court was correct, 

.lud should be confirmed. 

DOEiON. aj. (dm.) :— 

The respondent, on the evening of the 11th June, 1883, 
deposited a cheque with Macmaster, Hutchinson & Weir, 
the condition being that he, the respondent, against 
whom a capias had issued, should be at liberty that night, 
but if he did not appear at appellants' office with his 
bondsmen by eleven o'clock the next morning and give 
security, the cheque was to be applied in payment of 
debt and costs. The whole question in the case is 
whether the respondent arrived with his bondsmen pre- 
cisely at eleven o'clock 6r a few minutes' later. James 
Stewart, who was to have become one of the sureties, did 
not arrive in time, but Hopkins and McLean were there, 
and ready to give security. Even admitting thftt they 
were not there at eleven precisely, I am not disposed to 
think that a person should M^ subjected to imprisonment 
because his sureties happen to' arrive a few moments after 
the time agreed on. " By eleven o'clock " may fiurly be 
taken to mean " about eleven o'clock." There was a sub- 
stantial compliance with the i^reement entered into, 
and therefore I am not disposed to disturb the judgment 
of the Court below. . «* ' 



im. 

MaomMtor 
Moflbtt. 









=¥ 



I ' I 



\ 



H ! 




♦ • 



V 




HkoniMter 
Moflktt. 



\ 






892 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 




h-f ' 



Ramsay, J. c— " 

If 

This action gives rise to two questions : First, what did 
the appellants agree to on the evening of the 11th June ? 
Second, what took place on the morning of the 12th? 

On the first question there is no sort of difficulty. The 
respondent was to be at appellants' office '* bj/ eleven 
o'clock'' on the morning of the 12th with his bondsmen, 
and in that case the cheque was to be handed back 
to Moffatt, and to McLean who had endorsed it,— and 
McLean swears that he is morally convinced that Mac- 
master had a right to use it, if Moffatt was not there with 
his bondsmen 6^ eleven o'clock. 

The evidence does not appear to «ae to establish clearly 
t]jat when Moffatt, Hopkins and McLeaiL went to Mr. 
Macmaster's office pn the morning of the 12th, the fatal 
moment had elapsed. On the contrary, I think that, if 
Stewart had been there instead of McLean, Mofiatt would 
have complied with the conditions of the agreement so 
as to entitle him to get back his cheque ; but the fact is, 
McLean was not there as a bondsman at all'^he went 
there to look after his own interest (pp. 6-6, R. appendix), 
to see " the thing properly completed," #ad the comple- 
tion was that " the bondsmen were to become security." 
The proposed bondsmen were ^o be Hopkins and Stpw- 
art. It is true that when they were at Macmaster's 
office, McLean sought^i^ get the cheque back before the 
bond was entered into. McLean said to the* bailiflF:— "I 
will take my cheque which I endorsed, as you see I am 
here with the necessary parties." But this was not trne» 
One of the necessary parties was Mr. Stewart, and he 
avowedly ^«ver presented himself at Mr. Macmaster's 
office, but^\went to the Court House, where he arrived 
not earli&i:than twenty minutes past eleven. The differ? 
ence between the Chief Justice and the majority of 'the 
Court turns entirely on this : that he is of opinion that 
McLis^ took Stewart's place, and that appellant has no 
cause to complain of this, as there was no engagement as. 
to the parties who should be bondsmen ; while we think 







OOUBT OP (jUEBfrS BENCH. 

that McLeah was never offexed as a bondsman, and 
indeed no bond has ever been tendered to this day, so 
far as we know. - 

The other dissent tnms on two questions of fact : the 
one that there was no evidence to show that appellant 
had a rigljt to apply the money to the payment of the 
debt, and that it was only a security '; the other that it 
was not proved that the bondsmen were to go to appel- 
lants-office. It seems to me impossible to concur in these 
views after reading McLean's evidence. He is a witness 
evidently very favorable to Moffiitt, and yet he is com- 
pelled unequivocally to admit that it was understood 
Macmaster had a right to apply the money to the debt if 
Moffatt with his bail were not at the office of appellant 
by (eleven o'clock. ^ , -- 

The judgment Will therel^re be reversed, with costs. 

Monk, J. :_ f>/ 

. I have no hesitation in concurring in the judgment for 
the reasons which have been given by my learnet 
brother. An agreement was made by a professional gc 
tleman of a somewhat pferilpus nature, but the object 
to accord an unusual indulgence to Moffatt. The ques- 
tion is, did he (Moffatt) comply with the terms of 
agreenaent t I am unable, after a careful consjderatioii of 
the evidence, to arrive at the conclusion that there Jas a 
substantial compliance with the agreement, and the/efore 
I concur in reversing the judgment of the Court bejtow. 
/ The judgment of the Cotirt below is as follows -7 
"The Court, etc. 7 

"Considering that plaintiff, now respondent, /hath not 
proved the material allegations of his declaration in this 
cause, and more especially he hath not pro\£d that he 
fairly, legally and substantially fulfilled and complied 
with the agreement relied upon by the /appellants, 
4efendantsbelowi in their pleas, upon whicl/ the cheque 
in question in this cause was left with theW by him at 
their office for the purpose of giving bail ih a ca^s case 
taken against said respondent, as agreed ^n, by eleven 






•Xj, -.-■-■ 



-_/- 



t- 




1 ! ' 




MO. 

MMinuttr 
MoHatt. 






u ^ 

1: 



E* Jr 



"a 



'';:^-' ;^ 



894 






MONTREAL LAW REPOBTH. 



Mi 



o'clock on the 12th day of June last, for that pnrpoie, and 
especially that the respondent presented himself with his 
bondsmen at the office of the appellants on said day, at 
eleven o'clock, as by said agreement he had promised to 
do, and therefore, that in the jjidgment appealed from*, to 
wit, the judgment rendered })y the Superior Oourt, at 
Montreal, on the 29th of December, 1888, there is error; 

"Doth reverse the said judgment, and proceeding to 
render t^e- jjudgment which the said Court ought to have 
rendered, doth dismiss the actipn of the said jwspondent 
(plaintiff below) with costs as well in the Court below as 
in the Court here." (Diss. Ppifion, C.J., and Cross, J.) 
' Judgment reversed. 

^enholme, Taylor Sc Dicksori for appellants. 

Doutre, Joseph 4* Danduirand for respondent. 
(J.if.) V 



16 septembre 1885. 
Qwaw DoEioN, J.C.,* Monk, Ramsay, Cross, J J. 

V, 

COURSOL ET AL., 
> (Demandeurs en Cow ItrfMeure), 

Appelants; 
ET 

MIS SYNDICS DE LA PAEOISSE Dfi STE. 
OUNfiGONDE, 

ii.' . {Difemleurs en C!our Infirieure), 

'I- \ -■/';■ Intim£s. 

Auditum par privilige-rProcfdlt $ommaire»—EvoeatUm. . 

Jcet:— Qa'unsppeld'anjugementdels Cottr Sap6rieure d^idant prfi* 
alsblement de la validity d'une Evocation de la,CSour de Circuit A la 
Coor Sop6rieure, peat dtre entendn par privily la rSgle 6taaxi que 
toate cause qui doit dtie jugfe sommaireme^t en Cour Sap6rieqre^ 

i pentr^tre^galement^appel. 7 

Les intimSs poursnivirent les appelants en Coiir de 
Circnit poor $265.16 cts., pour le premier jmiemeiit d'une 






•/T 



\\/ 




'msmt*- 



v-t-., 



»fitembre 1885. 



OOURT OF QUEBira BENCJH. 



895 



i\ 



Oonnol 
Lm Srnd 



* ■ . . . ~ 

^partition imposde pour la conBtruction d'une 6gli8e dans 
la paroiase Ste. Oundgonde. 

Avant de plaider, les dfefendeurs 6voquArent la canse k ,,0,1. 
la Oour Sup6rieur6 ea vertu de Tarticle 1068 du Code ae^*^*^"*"*^*^ 
Proc6dare Civile. 

En vertu dumdme article, la CourS«p6rieure(Mathieu, 
\\JJ ^^**^* ^"'^^ ^'y ^V"* P"* ^ieu k 6voquer cette cause, 
et ordonna que le .dossier fut renvoy6 k la Cdur de Circuit. 
Ce jugempnt fut port6 en appel par les dlfendeurs. 
4 Les intim^s firent une application verbale demandant ' - ^- 
4 6tre entendu par privil6ge. lis invoquaient le dit 
article 1068 du C.P.C. qui dit qu%ds que le dossier 
aura 6t6 transmis k la Cour Sup6rieuiy, celle-ci "decide 
fommotremefi/ de la validity de revocation." 
DoRiON, J.C, (apr^s avoir r6cit6 les faits] :— 
U rdgle que nous avon* suivie, c'est que, ce qui doit 

ftkejug6 sommairement euCour Sup6rieure, pent l'6tre 
egalement devant cette cour. Or, 1 'article 1068 du Code 

de ProcMure Civile, dit que la Cour Snp6rieure devra 
dteider sommairementde la validit6 de revocation d'une ' 

cause de la Conr de Circuit. Les intim68 out done le 
droit d'etre entendus par privilege. (') 

I Application accordfie, 

"^^pon/ ^ Aimartf, pour les appelants. 
/. /. Beauchamp, pour les intim6s. 
(J.J. B.) 

* • 

(')Lac«weayaiit4t«entefeluele23 aeptembre, le jugement ftt 



finii^. 



con- 



■i 

'■7Y 





■ • ■ 


■ : '■' 


"■•''' 


* , 


* ■ ■ 

'-- "'■ /■ 
■- ■■ ■■■ ■ / ■ 


1 


/ 


_. /'>;?fr^ •__: _ ' '■'■"-:■■_- - '. - :- 


'■9 

f 








1 




■ • , , 


4 




' % 






I 
1 

■/'■ : 




■r. 






-'i w^aaiH^^^B 




■ 


^^^^^@ 


L, 






■' ^. i^H 



Ui 



■\h. 



jiL 



• ^'"^^ 



i ^ 




I 



»• ■ .. :.: ,,i 



8d6 



MOKTttBAt LAW HBPOtlTS. 



26 septembre 1886. 
C^am Sir A. A. Dorion, J.O., Ramsay, Tesbier, Gross & 

Baby, JJr. 

LA CORPORATION DU SfiMINAIRE DE ST. HYA- 
^ CINTHE DYAMASKA, 

{Contestanle en Cour infirieUre), 
y Appe;.ante, 



i 



ET 



LA BANQUE DE ST. HYACINTHE, 
{Detnanderesse et crianci^e coUoquie en Cour inf&rieure), 

. . _ _.^___^_ ^_^ ___. ^_^ Intimj&e. 

Primlige du constructeur — Art. 2018 C. C. 

Jro* :— la Qu'en v^rtu de I'artiole 2013 dn Code Civil le coDStructeurqui 
a obflerv<^ les formality remiiseH par cet article n'a de privily que 
sur la plus-value donnto A rh^ritage |>ar lea constructionH quMi y a 
faites, et qu'il n'a aucun privilege ou liypotlidque sur le fondfl m^me 
de I'Mritage. • 

2a Que I'enregiBtr^inent du proc^verbal requis par I'art 2013 C. C. pour 
la pr^Hervation du dit privily ne cr4e pas sur I'imineuble une hypo- 
thi^que tacito en favour da conatructeur. / 

Appel d'un jngement rendu par la Cour Supdrieure Bi6- 
geant k St. Hyacinthe le 18 jnin 1884, pr6sid6e par I'Hon. 
juge Sicotte. Les remarques de Thonorable juge eu chef 
de la Oohr d' Appel expliqueront suffisamment jes faits de 
la cause et les pretentions des parties. 

Sir A; A. DoRjoN, J.C. :— ^ 

La Banque de St. Hyacinthe a fait vendre par le sh^rif 
un immeuble appartenani au nomi^f^ Dwane, le d^fen* 
deur, qui en 1882 et 1883 avait fait tAger des bfttisses sur 
le terrain par un entrepreneur nomm^ Barbeau. Ce der- 
nicer, afin de s'assurer le privilege de constructeur tel qu'£- 
tabli par I'article 2013 du Code Civil, avait fait faire une 
expertise le 22 d6cembre 1882, qui fut enregistree le 18 
Janvier 1883, par laquelle T^tat du terrain est constats et 
sa valeur etablie k $460. Le 18 d6cembre 1882, Dwane 
avait consenti une hypothdque k I'appelante pour une 
somme de $8000. Cette hypotbeque, qu6iqu'ant6rieare 
an premier proces- verbal d'expertise du construc^iar Bar 
beau, ne fut enregistree que le 20 Janvier 1888. 



■^ 'T^S'^TS^ .^'^'''^l^''^^'T*^^^'^^^^^''^'^^P'^*1^ 



DE ST. HYA- 



OOURT OF QUEEirS BENCH. 



m 



■ \ 



UMl 



La 8 mars anlTant, X)mahe consentit k I'appelante ane 
autre obligation hypoth6quaiit le m«me immeuble ponr |^*^&„^1^• 
♦2000. Cette obligation iut enregistrie le 6 mara 1888. ubZuM.' 

Le IT septembre 1888. Barbeau fit enregistrer, une se-*" "'^•»'»'»••• 
conde expertise en date du 14 septembre, d'apris laquelle 
il appert que les travaux faits par lui sur I'immeuble b'6- 
levaient a une valeur de $5,400. 

Par acte pass6 le 29 Janvier 1888 et dnregistrfi le 14 
mars suivant, Barbeau a renonc6 en faveur de I'appelante, 
jusqu'A concurrence do |2,000, k son privilfege de cons- 

tracteur, et le 18 avril 1888, Barbeau a transports k Tin- — 

timte, la Ban que de St, Hyacinthe, la balance du prix de 
son contrat, savoir «2,500, qui lui fctait garantie par Tex- 
pertise premi^rement mentionn6e. Ce dernier acte a 6t6 
enregistrfi le 10 octobre 1888. ' 

Le protonotaire, proc6dant k la distribution, a colloqu'6 
I'appelante pour le montant de $2,000 k elle transports 
par Barbeau, et ensuite I'intimSe pour la balance des de- 
niers k distribuer en deduction du montant de |2,600 que 
Barbeau lui avait transports. 

L'appelante a contests cette collocation, allSguant que 
le protonotaire aurait du colloquer I'intimSe, comme ces- 
sionnaire du privilSge du constructeur, non pas sur le 
montant qui reprSseijte le prix de I'immeuble, mais sett- 
lement sur le montant qui reprSsente la plus-value don- 
nSe k I'immeuble par les travaux, ainsi que le yeut I'ar- 
ticle 2018 0. G Les conclusions de la contestation de- 
mandent qu'une ventilation ait lieu suivant la loi pour, 
determiner d'apres ce principe la proportion a StrS accor- 
d6e aux creanciers hypothScaires, et celle k acconier au 
reprSsentant du constructeur. / 

L'article 2018 du Code Civil donne au constructeur un 
droit de pr^fSrence seulemetU sur la plus-value donnSe k I'hS- > 

ritage par ses constructions k I'encontre du vendeur et des 
aatres crSanciers. Ces termes paraissent bien clairs, mais 
I'intimSe prStend que l'article 2018 n'est. pas constitutif 
de droit nouveau 6 cet Sgard ; que les anciens auteurs 
(dont notre Code, par un vice de rSdaction, n'a pas 
reproduit le langage) disent tons que le privUSge du cons- 




Z' » 




t'4. 



rMlnlha 
•t 

Btnqdn i|« 




\- 



m 



MOHTRKAL LAW RRPORm 



tructear exiflte mr rimmeuble enttor et s'^tond Jtuqu'A U 
pluH-valuu <lonii6(4 ik I'h^ritagu par \m trsvaax ; «i quu 
ruN:pi^M«ion "mr la pias-value" du notra Oodu duvnit 
Atre *'/H»Mr la pluH-value." 

Main ce ii'nfit pan lA cu que distrnt los auteura. 11 tint 
parfaitement vrui que le ^ivil%e da ^Ofttructeur est 
toi^joars rMuctible k la plua-valuo donn6e k rimmeable. 
MaiM h>8>iroitit (hi constructeur et ceux^dus cr£truci«rR hy* 
Ytoih6cme» ne peavent jamais coucourir car ils porteut 
«ur dw8 objets diff(&rontn. Troplnnf^ (Priv. et Hyp.<^ Vol. I, 
No. BO, Hur Tart. 209(S) expliqae la doctrine trds clfti||^inent : 
— ^' C'est par une veritable confagion de mots qtt.!|i|i^ parle 
" de pr6f6rence entre le constrtioteur oa ripariftej^f et le 
" vendeur on co-part ageant. II ne peat y avoir (^e> pr^f^- 
" Tcnce qu*entre cr^anciers venaut en concoura sur le 
" m£me objet ; et ici la piossibilit^ de ce concours n'existe 
^' pas, paisqae le privilege de Toavrier et celai dii yen- 
" dear oa co-partageant portent sai' des objets diffSrei^ts. 
" Chacun se fera-donc payer sar Ie8!|y||n,ier8 qai lai sont 
" fifiect^s par privilege, sans a%oir ^ craindre la ox>ncar- 
**^rence I'un de Taatre." 

" Ainsi, toates les fois qU'an cr6ancier poar frais de 
" reparations se pr^sentera d an ordre enr-mAme ifemps 
" qn'an y endear oa co-partageant, on d^terminera 1% va^ 
" leur de I'immeable k I'^poque ou les travaax aoiront 6te 
" entrepris, et cette valear sera alloa^e poar le toat an . 
" vendeur ou co-partageant. Tant pis pour eux si Tim- 
" meublib s'est d6t6rior6 entre les mains du d6tenteur.y 
^ " On estiknera ensuite la plus-value que les travaux aa- 
" ront procuT^e k Timmeuble et qui sera arbitr^e par Is 
" valeuf de ce mdme immeuble au moment de Tadjudicar 
" tion. Et cette plus-value sera attribute pour le total 4 
" Touvrier. quelque 6tenidue qu'elle soit, sans que le ven- 
" dfeur ou le coh6ritier puisse s'en plaindre." 

II en est de m6me dans le cas de la collocation du pri- 
vilege d'nn constructeur et des cr^ances hypothecaircs. 
Ges demieres portant sur tout le fonds, et le privilege da 
^bnstructeur ne portant que sur la plus-value d(ann6e k ce 
fonds, il ne pent pas y avoir de concurrence possible. II 



.A»-'1 



■s.-^ 



COURT OF QUEKNV BENCH. 



m 



p«al y •voir quelqua difficult* qnant k \m maniArt* de pro- 

c«l«r k r«iitimatioii, tnaiN iiouh n'avoiiM pan A (l6«'idHr tititto /SlTl^'Retl 

(laestion A prtneiit. Nou* ordonnon^ ■itnpl««ni«iit qa'ane u \u!!t,u,2 

vctntilation Moit faito poard^(^riniti«rlapro|)ortionda prix"*' ""•'■'^ 

d« vetito ciui n>pr6ii«mt« le prit du fonda, et c«II« qui re- 

pr^sentti la plua-value doDn6«i H rimni«ubl« par \m tra- 

vaux du conHtructeur. 

L« B^minairc, comino ceaiiionnaire du ronatruoteur, , 

prondra touH le« deuiera r«pr6«n'ntant Ui prix du I'ouda, et 
la Banqufl prendra ceui qui rHpr^anntent la plus-value. 
On a ausai pr6tendu quo, tm Huppoaant quo lu privilege 

de Barbeaun'exiatAtpaa^ou n« jwrtftt quo aur la plus- 

value, il avait au moina une hypothiique /aciTt; ordinaire aur 
la totality de rimmeuble pour la valeur de sea travaux, 
d^-terminfee d'aprda la plus-value qu'ils lui out conf^r^. 
Lora de la constitution et de Tenregistrement de cette hy- 
pothdque tacite, dit I'intim^e, il n'y avait aucnne iypo- 
thd^e ou privilege affectaut rimmeuble de Dwano, et lea 
deux obligations de I'appelante sont postftrieurea A celle 
du constmcteur. ' * 

Mais notre Code eat different du Code iVan9ai8 A cet 

fcgard. Sous notre droit le privil^e n'emporte pas hypo- 

theque. Pour cr6er uue hypothfique il fautdea formalit^a 

8p6<riale8, et dans le caa du conatructeur renregistrement 

.du proc^a-verbal ne cr6e paa d'hypothdque. 

Le jugement formel de la Cour eat r*dig6 dans lea 
termes suivants : 

"Considferant qu'en vertu de Tarticle 2018 du Code 
Civil le constmcteur qui a observ6 lea formalit6s requiaes 
par cet article n'a de Rrivil6ge que aur la plus-value don- 
ate A I'hfiritage par lea conatructions qu'il y a faites et . ^ 
qu'il n'a aucun prrvil6ge ou hypothAque sur le fonds 
mfime de I'h^ritage ; 

" Et conaidferant que la Corporation appelante a acquis 
one hypothAque sur I'hferitage mAme remontant A la date 
du vingt Janvier 1888,jour ou elle a feit enregiatier I'obli- 
gation que lui a consenti Timothy Dwane le d6fendeur en ■ • 
cette cause pour la somme de 18,000, et qu'elle a le droit ^ — 
d'Atre colloqu6e surla partie des deniers rapport6s devant 



4' 



■»ff 









400 



MONTREAL LAW RRPOinE 









I 



IMA. 




■*" 


/ 




,1 


i 

1 





"'I '■ 






[l 






V 

^ 

If 


*■ 

1 




^ 


* 1 


' 






c«itt«^ (^Aour, qui rMpr^Mtnti! U valeur du fontlit mAme dit 

' ifr'lixMinik* I'ti^iritagii votidu «>ti iwU» oauao par pr6r(6rt4nc;u A laB«nq^«« 

' Uju^Miuxu <!•' Ht. Ilyatiintho, ritiUm6«, qui ntpr<Ni««nt6 Id coDMtrui^t«ur 

*"' '**''*'^*' J<Nt«ph Uarbeau qui lai n'avait auoon privil^gu ui hypo* 

thuquu Mur lit dit h^tritago maia H4>ult«m«mt «nr la plnii^ 

value doim^o j^r l«t^ «oiiiitrurtioua qu'il a i'aitim ; 

" Et cojiNidi^rant (ju'il y^a nrrwur dam lejugumtint rendu 
parja Cour du prttmioru iiuitanru lo douxi^^ie jonrdujuin 
I8H4; • 

'^Cctt« (7onr cMm «t annnio lo dit jufi^tnAnt'dn 2 juln 
1884 ot prorMant ik reiidru lu jugeinout qu'auruit du r«ui- 
drn la dite Cour de pri'midri! iiiNtanct!, maiutiunt la cou- 
teatation d<« Tappftlantt) au prqjet de diBtribution et oollo> 
cation pr6par6 on cetto t^auMO, ot ordonn« qa'avant faire 
druit il Noit noniin6 d«a u^porta m<>un I'autorit^ do la Oour 
tSup^riouro i>our i'airo uno vontilation et ^rtublir auivant le 
oqura ordinaire do la loi quuUo portion doa deniena rap- 
poij^^a devant la dite Cour Sup^rioure etf provenant de Is 
vonte de rimmeuble vendu aur 1« d^fendeur en oette 
cauBo repr^sVnto la valour du fonda du dit h6ritago <>t 
quelle proportion repr^sonte 1& valeur des am^liorationi 
que I'auteur do I'iutim^e lo dit Joseph Barbeau y a faites, 
le tout eu 6gard aux valenrs reapectivea du fonda du dit 
heritage et deaditoa ameliorations k I'^poque de la vente 
qui en a 6te faite par lo sh^rif en vertu du bref d'ex6<'a- 
tion on cette cause, si mieux n'aiment les parties conyoQir 
detelles valodiTs ot 6viter les frais de telle expertise, poor 
% qu'il 8oit ensuite proc6d6 par la dite Cour^ Sup6rieure k 

distribuer les deniers attribu^s k Tintim^e snr le projet 
de distribution en cette cause conlbrm^ment aux droits 
des ditoH parties respectivement ; 
•• " Et cette Cour condamne Tintim^e k payer k I'appe- 

Ian te les d6pens enconrns tant snr la contestation da pro-^ 
jet de distribution et collocation de I'^ntim^e en cette 
cause que sur I'appel." , i 

{Dissentiente I'Honorable M. lo juge Tessier.) 

Jugement infirm^. 

_ \ Lacoste, Olobenskjf, Bisaillon Sf Broasem pour Tappelantd. 

Qeoffrion, Dorian, Ltyieiar ^ Riitfrd pour rintim6e. 



f^" '«•" 



w- 



0,' 



^ 



^ / 



• CmtKr OF qu KKN-B BENCa. 



• "it 



y 




Jwmary 2t. l«6fi. 



l\ 



Omm DoRiow, e. J.. Uamhav. Ciu.kh. Bamy, JJ. "^ 
JOHN A. I»(U.()W KT At. 

AlM'KIJMNW; 
AlfD 

KKCOUimftltCJOURT OK THK CITV OF MONTUEAL, 

{/Mf/tHdttHi in Court below), j 

> ' AND , / 



THK CITYOFMONTKKAR. 

(Mia m CQn$e in Court hdow), - 

THE HON. J. A. MOUSSEAU. 
UUomeff(hnernlforP.Q.^Inlervmant), 

Rkhi»ondent». 
B. NA. Act, 1807 Se,. 91 no. 21 ; Sec. 92. «o. 8~La.a/ 
JJ^»W..fto«~87 Vic. (Q.) ,^51, 42 4. 48 nV:. (Q.) .. f,8-l. 

M^t l^i^utu^Nuisanc^CKirnney .endmg ^ 
moke tn hurtful quantity. 

w.th an Iml cUbte rai*len,e.nour, tl.ut Iwing a ...atter of CTiminal 
InM^ "T.""- ""''^'^ y' "'« P""'^'"«»K,r Canadi they "^v^ 
'^m' T t"'*?^ '" "'^ P-'-JWtlon of thing. huSilTp Jllc 

P'T « an Indictable omtnoe under the criminal law. ' " 

Mo!Il! *?^^ ™ ^~"" a judgment of the Superior Court. 
Montreal. Dohkbty. J. August 16. 1888. in the followi^ 

"Considering that petitioners have /ailed to establish^ 
e material al egations ^of their petition, and more 




tile material al| 
Vol. L Q. a 









*■«*-' 



F"i 



IBM. 

Pillow et bI. 

k 

Cily ul' 

Mautre#l. 



#- 



I • i 







402 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS./ 



i'. 



'? 



particularly the want of jurisdiction in the Recorder's 
Court of the Cit|^ of Montreal in the premises, as by 
th&m alleged ; and considering that to legislate upon the 
subjoct matter of the kcik ft7 Viitoria, Chapter 51, and 
42 and 43 Victoria, Chapter 53, is within the competency 
and jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislature, according 
to the distribution of legislative powers between the 
Parliament of Canada and the Provincial Ijegislaturos 
made by sections 01 and 92 of the B. N.A. Act respectivety, 
and that said acts and legislation and the matter thereof 
are not ultra vires of the said Provincial Legislature, being 
acts passed and legislation in relation to " Municipal 
Jhstitutions," and not to "Criminal Law," within the 
me&ning and intent of said sectionOI ; ^^ *"V.. 

"And considering that said legislatioiti is not of the 
nature or character of Crimind Law, nor for the suppres- 
sion or punishment of crime in the sense and intent of 
subdivision No. 27 of said section 91, bu{ merely to pro- 
tect the citizens of Montreal from the res noxia, hurt and 
anuoyance of oflfences not criminal in their nature, and^ 
not; within the purview and intention of said number 27 
of said section 91 ; 

" Considering, therefore, that the By Law No. 180 com- 
plained of by the Petitioners as being ultra vires of the 
mis en cause, the Qity of Montreal, is intra vires of the.said 
City duly incorporated as a " municipal institution," and 
was legally passed in virtue of fhfe statutes 37 ajad 42 and 
43 Victoria of the. Provincial Legislature; 

" I, the undeT8%ned Judge, do quash the writ taken in 
this cause, and dismiss said petition with cjosts." _ 

Macmoi^w-, O; a, foLthftAppeHant :—-'' 

, ,, It isTstear that whatever is a matter of criminal law, or 

li Wt<fer ofcriminal procedure, belongs exclusively to the 

l^illatirillttitbority of the Parliament of Canadar-that 

iifisMic/iKMin the Federal jurisdiction by the strongest 

i affirmative declaration iA the Statute, and that it is 

\xclud^ froni the ProvinciaUurisdiction by equally strong 

inhibHfve declarations. In fact, apart from the direct 

Btfttemeiit in section ,91. that Criminal law and procednro 



i It ni 




r:::r;. . 



r. 



COURT OF QUEEN'S BPNCH. 



408 



City of 
MontraaL 



fall exclusively under the exclusive jurisdiction of the i**. 
Parliament of Canada, and the further stateitiint thiit """yt*!- 
they do so fall, " notwahHanding nni/mng in this Act" there 
is the insuperable ijider in the last clause of section 01, 
that the subjects so enumerated ^im^uding the Criminal 
Law and Procedure) fall within the exclusive Legislative 
jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, even when they 
might appear to relate to a merely locat or private matter in tlte 
Province. The matters charged against. petitioners are 
that they have committed or permitted the commission 
of a public nuisance, and they are summoned to a trial 
therefor before a Municipal Court. The charge made 
against them is a crime in the eye of the la\<r— a crime 
for which they^ are indi<^table— a crime for which they 
have been indicted— a <rime for which they have been 
tried and acquitted by a jury Of their countrjrmen, properly 
instructed by a judge of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's 
Bench. In Iteg^ y. Lawrence (') it was held that a Pro- 
vinciail Legislature cannot legislate with respect to offences 
of a criminal nature, except where such legislation is 
required for tl^e direct enforcement of a " law of the Pro- 
vince made in relation to a matter coming wUhin the exclusive 
jurisdiction." This would be under Sec. 92, Sub-Sec.ls! 
In legislating in regard to a matter within Provincial 
jurisdiction, a Provincial Legislature has no power to enforce 
its law by provisions respecting the trial and punishment of 
offenders in respect of acts which would be criminal offences 
at common law. Section 51 of the Liquor License Act of 
Ontario, R. S. O. ch^lSl, bjr which jt was provided that 
-any person who, ^n any prosecution under that Act tam- 
pered with a witness, or induced, or attempted to induce 
any such person to absent himself, or to ^wear falsely, 
should, be liable to a penalty of $60,00, was therefore held 
tobe invalid. ^ - v 

The following additional Authorities were cited for the 

appellant :— '\, „ _ii^ ;^_^ .,_^^ 

Severn r, m Queen, 2 Can. Sup. Court Rep., p. 10. 

(')48U.G Q.B.164,168. f^ 



1 












■ ♦•■'-* 




1885. 

Pillow et al- 

k 
' City of 
Montreal. 



/ 



404 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



Russell V. The Queen, 7 L. R. Appeal Cases, page 829. 
CV/y of Frederickton v. The Queen, 3 Can. Sup. Court Rep., 
p. 505, Overruling -.—Regina v. Taylor, 1 Can. Sup. Court 
Rep., Pi 65.' -Regina \. Kerr etal A l^m^ News, p, 121,. 
Corjiwalibnof Three Rivers v. Suite, 5 Legal News, p. 330. 
Citizens Insurance Company v. Parsons, 1 L. R. Appeal 
cases, p. 06. Regina v. Lawrence, 43 U. C. Q. B., pp. 164 
and 168. Hottge v. The Queen, 7 Lt^gal News, p. 18. 
Poulin V. Corporation of Quebec, 6 Legal News, p. 214. Sir 
John A. MacDonaUfs opinions. Confederation Debates, pp. 
30, 33, 40 and 41. 
R. Roy, Q. C, for the City of Montreal :— 
La pretention des appelants pent se resumer en deux 
mots ; le statut provincial 42-3 Vict. i;liap. 53 est incon- 
stitutionnel, partant le reglement fonde sur ce st«tut esfe-.^ 
nul et non-avenu, et la Cour du Recorder n'avait aucune 
juridiction dans la matiere. Le raisonnement adopts par 
les appelants pour -soutenir leur these est que tout nui- 
sance constitue un crime en droit commun, que le para- « 
graphe27de la § 91 de " I'Acte de TAmferique Britannique 
du Nord 1867," attribuant exclasivement tout ce qui est 
dejuridictiohcriminelleauParlement federal, la nuisance 
commise par les appelants ne^pouvait faire le sujet d'une 
legislation locale, ni du reglemeilt q!« en est la suite. II 
faut-donc voir si I'acte reproche aux appelants constitue 
un crime, ou si, au contraire, c'est un simple fait que la 
Legislature locale pduvait autoriser . la municipality 4 
prohiber, Et d'abord remarquons que le terme nuisance, 
dout se sert I'adte provincial, n'est pas employfe dans le 
sens technique, etn;a en soi aucun caractere. ^ En attri- 
buant a 1& Legislature locale une juridiction exclusive sur 
" Les institutions municipales dims la province," I'acte 
fǤderal, dans I'article 92, ne pouvait avoir d'autre inten- 
tion que de conserver aux municipalitfis les pouvoire dont 
elles ettfient revfetues k cette 6poque lA m6me, et qn'elle* 
avaient alors droit d'exercet pour la protection et l^sauvfr- 
garde de leurs habitants ; elles demeuiraient Jibres de pro. 
mulguer to# ordonnance de la nature d'ua reglement de 
police, tout mesnre essentielle au bien dtre et au confort 
— ~ — . ' ■ <j' '. — ' '■ ' — ' — z ~ ' — ~ 



V 



^ 

t 



)rovince," I'acte 



<X)tJBT OF QUEEire BENCH. 



405 



.CJty of 
Montnial. 



des contribaables ; tandis que par I'article 91, I'acte-' "»• 
constitutioiinel rtservait -exclusivement au Parlement ^'''''J*'''- 
ftd6ral la compaence en matiere criminelle et tout con- 
trole pour les crimes proprement dits, tels quele meurtre, 
le vol, Tincendiat, le parjure et autres offenses du ni6nie 
genre qui sont du domaine publique. Dans I'espece il 
nes'agit nullement d'un crime ;Me8 appelants n'6taiMit.> 
accuses que d'avoir eommis un acte prohibe par l'autorit6 
locale dans I'inter^t 4'une localite limit6e, et d'avoir cbn- 
trevenu d un simple reglement de police. Mais si I'inter- 
prfetation des appelants 6tait la veritable, si toufe la matidre 
des nuisances 6tait irr6Vocablement du ressort du Parle- 
ment f(Sd6ral, que deviendraient done les institutions 
municipales ? Comment! En adoptant la definition. d6 
Russell (2 Russell on Crimes, p: 418) savoi?, "nuisance, po- 
'^cvmentum or annoyance, signifies anything that worketh 
'|huTt, inconvenience or damage, and nuisances are of 
II two kinds, Tw^ftc or common nuisances which affect the 
" public and are an annoyance to M the King's subjects, 
" and /jfiwo/e nuisances, which maybe defined as anything 
"done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, 
"or hereditaments of another," I'autorite locale serwt 
priv6e de tout controle sur la regie interieure, elle serSt 
impuissante k prohiber I'abattage des animaux dans ses 
•limites, & y interdire rexploitationd'^tablissements dftn- 
gereuxetiiisalubres,}! s6Vir contr^fes proprietaires de 
terrains ou habitations qui seraient une <;ause de dangers 
pour la sante et |e bien 6tre du voisinpgej puisque la d6fi^ 

nition s'appliqu^ exactement a chacun d]6;<^es faits. > 

J. L. ArchambtMl for the Attoi;ney Gen.eral :— ^ 

II est ind6niable que le Parlement F6d6ral ^it juridic- 
tion sur les que^ions de nuisance fen g6n6rai; c!est lui 
qui a le contr61e # I'administration de la justice criminelle. ,^ *. 
m sorte que les dffenses qui procSdent du chef ci-dessus 
i)t ^ui entriu^etit avec elles condamuation a quelque 
lipnalit§ pu 4 I'^inprisonnement peuvent 6tre jug^es et 
deterbinfie^ soiju Tautoritfi des Iqjs de ce Parlement; 
maisl'IfttervenahLsoumet que'les 16gisl^tures locales ont 
ftn fM^TtftiiiH (THH eff^ n t n mment dans rpsp^eri ^taelle 






,\ 



t I 



tiiro- 



'i, 



V 



^J' 



'.^■ik /' 



\ i 



188S. 

Pillow et al. 

& 

City of 

'Montreal. 




Vi 



406 






MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



jurisdiction concurrente avec ce Parleraent. EIles.pQuvefnt 
prohiber les ^tablissements insalubres ou dangereux dan^ 
les limites de la Province ou s'exerce leur autorit^, et 
tout au moins soumettre ces Mablissements 4 certains 
rdgle^nts ou k certaines conditions d'entretien. Elles 
peuvent de ififeme conferer aux diflRfrentes municipalit^s 
ou sont ^tablies des industries du geqre de celles des 
appelants lo pouvoii; de se proteger d'une raaHtidre efficace 
contre les dangers r^^ultant de tel les industries, de m^me 
que le droit de proteger la sant6 et la vie des citoyens par 
dQS mesures sanitaires ou de- simple prudence. L'acte 
F^6ral.clause 92 indique sous le^jaaots " InstUidwm Muni- 
cipales" Vnke des branche8~;^;e I'oTganisation publique 
auxquelles l^s legislatures ptovinciales permettent de^ 
IfegiKrer sur les matieres* affectaut les droits publics et • 
privi&s des citoyens de'chaque province. Son Honneurle 
juge Torrance en rcndant le jugement de la Cour Inf6ri- 
eure sur Je certiorari a dans les notes qui accompagwent ce 
jugement, .rapporte dans le Legal News, vbl. 6, p.'209, 
(annee 1883) abonde dans le sensde cette interpretation, 
de I'acte federal. 

■ . . - ■■^■' ■ V ■ _-■ 

Cross, J.: — 

The appellants, manufacturers of nails, bolts and dther " 
like iron wares, were prosecuted before ^the Recorder's 
Court at the instance ol the City of Montreal, " for that the 
" chimney of their ipanufactory in Montreal did gend forth 
" smoke in such a quantity as to be a nuisance, the said 
** nuisance being then and there hurtful to public heal|:)i^ 
" and safety, and did then and there -neglect to abate tne 
" said nuisance, contrary to the by-law of the City Counci^ 
Whereupon the appellants petitioned the Superior C^urt 
for and obtained a Writ of Prohibition, claiming that the 
City Council had no right to make such By-law ; that the 
Recorder , had no jurisdiction' to try the complaint ; that 
what constituted a nuisance was not within the power pr> 
jurisdiction of either ; that it Was a misdemeanor only tri' 
abje before properly constituted Courts of criminal juris- 




'■ ■ •'PisSB^'lwriSf'fS!^ 



"N. 



e interpretation. 



)UJIT OF QUEEN'S. BENCH. 



40^ 



.City of 
MoatrML 



of 1867, and Wng a criminal offence was only subject to i8» 
the legislation/Qf the Parliament of Canada and not to the kuow .t •■ 
Legislature ot the ProvincW)f <Juebec. wh6 had no juris- * 
diction in the matter, and could give hone to- the City 
Council or/to the Recorder. That appellants had been 
I itidic^ed fo/ a Nuisance before the Court of Queen's Benck 
i in connections with their said works, ohe of them "had 
•■ ^T ^^^S*"^ *°^ proceedings were pending against the 
;^ other. „y^hey had also been prosecuted an^ convicted 
I hBfqr^ the:Recorder Ibr an alleged previdu^ offence, fbr 
i the hk^ (^use, in connection with the same manufactory, 
1 and the proceedings had been removed by certiorari to the 
■ Supei'ior Court. Wherefore they prayed that the By-law 
1 should be declared null .and cancelled ; that a peremptory 
jWrit of Prohibition should issue to the Recorder; and 
jthat the Attorney-General should be made party to the^ 
|pr6ceeding8. ' 

The City of Montreal appeared and pleaded to the Peti* 
ion, denying appellaijt's pretentions. The Attorney- 
general 4lsos appeared to sustain the validity of the 
provincial Statute. , 

/ Ob^ies of the proceedings alleged in the Petition were 
prodiiced and^admitted. 

The case bein^Lard on the merits, the judgment of the 

Superior ,^ourt sustained the By-law and the Provincial 

Statutes un^er which it was made, and quashed the Writ 

of Prohibition, from which judgment the present appeal 

(has been taken. " 

It is not pretended that the By-law exceeded the author- 
m purporting to be "given by ^e Provincial Statutes in 
pursuance whereof it was inade, but it is contended that 
hese Statutes were themselves u^constittitional and ultra 
dres, turning to deal with criminal law, in violation of 
(numeration- 2T of sec. 91 of the British North America 
Vet of 1867, attributing to the,Dominion Parliament the 
c^minallaw, excepl the constitution of Courts of Criminal 
Jiirisdiqtfon, but including the procedure in criminal 
matters. The Irst and pefhaps the only question is 
^ Whether in Jhi B m a tter thn Ti r^ gislatutM^Quebeeiil tf^ 
legislated upoi^ criminal offence. 






4 ■ ■ 




. * 








. -■- . 





-rr- 
I t 






I!' 



'i 4 




1«6IM 



, Pillow et al. 

i 

City of 

M6ntre«l. 




■ I I 



ml 



^ 






408 MONTREAdL LAW REPORTa 

The Statute of Qkebec of 1874, Si Vic. cap. 61, sec. 128, 
SB. 1, 2, authorises the Oity Gouncil to m^^e By-laws 
for, aivioDg other things, the prevention and, suppression of 
all nuisances ; that of the same liegislature 42 & 43 Vic. 
cap. 58, amending the Act of 1874, sec. 1B4, ^eclare/B that 
for the purpose of the Act of ':i^874, and of the acts amend- 
ing the Same and of any by-law thereunder hiade for the, 
abatement of nuisances affecting public health or sal'ety 
ii^ the said city, and the punishment of persons commit- 
ting or causing or permitting the same to be comhiitted, 
or to exist, the several' state of facts enumerated in said 
section, including that described in sub-sec. 9, sub follows : 
" Any chimney (not being the chimney of a privatedwel- 
" lingvhouse), sending, forth smoke in such quantity as to 
" be a nuisance," shouldibe deetned to be nuisances hurt- 
ful to public health and safety, and liable to be' dealt with 
in the manner to be provided by such byrlaw. The City 
Council made a By-law under the authority of these sta- 
tutes, imposing a penalty on persons^ using chimneys 
Blending fo/th smoke to the extent of the noxious quan- 
tity, and ydnder this By-law the appellants have belsn pro- 
secuted/oy the proceedings now ctfmplained of. 

Question-^Is the offence specified in these Statutes and 

" in the By-law made iii virtue of, their authbrity a misde- 
meanor at common law or otherwise,. and as such part-of 
the criminal law subject to be exclusively dealt with by 
the Parliament of Canada ? 

In Russeiron Crime8,»Prentice's Edn. of 1877, p, 418, lie 
says: "Ntiisance, .noc«»nert/i/»», or annoyance, signifieth 
" anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience or damage. 
" And nuisaUces are of two kinds, public or comiiuMinuisftn- 

' " ,ces, which affect the. public and are an annoyance to all 
" the King's subjects ; and private nuisances which may 
" be defined as anything done to the hurt or annoyance of 

' " the lands, tenements or herklitaments of another. Private 
" nuisances, as they are remedied only Iff civil p^roceedings, 
" do not come within the scope of this Trei^e," that is, his 
Tt-eatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors. 
»From this definition I conclude that the offence which 



has engaged the attention of the Quebec Legislator^ aST 






V < 



/ 



le offence which 



OOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



409 



of the Oity Council in this instance, falls short of the 
criminal misdemeanor of common nuisance. 

Anything that is hurtful or noxious may. be ilieluded 
in the term " nuisance," and it may be hurtful to public 
health and safety wiitftout attaining to* that degree of ^.n- 
noyanc^ to all the Qile^n's subjects which would raise it 
to the degree of nuisance at common law, that is the com- 
mon nuisance knowh to the law; and the fact that one ol' 
the Petitioners wqs. tried for committing a common nuis- 
ance for acts of the, sai^euttind as those in question, and^ 
was a^qui^ted, goes' to show that' the offence was less than 
a cbmmon nuisance, "and yet came ^yriifhin the description 
of that prohibited by the Provincial Statutes and the By- 
laws made in pursuance thereof I think it is more rea- 
sonable to consider it incjnded within police regulations, 
as incident to municipal institutionc^ in the (a*rovince, 
provided for by enumeration 8 of sec. 92. of the powers 
assigned to the %^incial ijiegislatures. It may perhaps 
also "be considered a matter of a, merely local or private 
nature within enumeration 16 proyidingfor public health 
and safety within the City of Montreal, necessitated by 
the establishihent of numerous manufactures within its 
precincts. The constitution, maintenance and organisa- 
tion of Provincial Cott^ts in enumeration 14, covers it in 
all respects so soon as it is taken out of the category of 
criminal "^ law. Perhaps the question could be met in a 
broader «ense, that is, admitting that the act of permitting 
or<;au8ing a chimney to send forth smoke in such quan- 
tity as to be a ^uisance amounts to the misdemeanor, 
which is a oommon nuisance by the criminal law of the 
land, would the Provincial Legislature be prohibited irpm 
taking measures, not to try whether a common nuisance 
had been committed for which the offender v^onld be 
amenable by criminal prosecution,) but when a certain 
state of faints occurred which might or might not amount 
i^uch common nuisance, would that Legislature' not.be 
entitled, always acting within their powers, to provide 
that 'such penalties would be a consequence of that state 
fff facta, would anoh meanH adopted foT'the prc a er^fttion ^ 



IMA. 

Pillow «t III. 

City of 
nirMU. 



Mon 



^• 



I 



' r^ 





- ^y v_^i- "^?{w*fcnw«gwf "a*";^™® ■™^* p'WfTO.aTOW^^.y 'W ^ I'^y'**'^^^ 



'J 



^ ' 



IMS. 

Pillow «l nl. 

k 

CUy «r 

MontrML 




f;l _ .. 



^ 



-4 



410 , t MONTREAL LAW REFORTa 

the hoalth of the city or any otW pnrpose over which 
their powerH extended, be obnoxious to the objection of 
invadinf^ the attributes of the Dominion Parliament ?. I 
would have the impreHsion that it would not, but it is 
unnecessary td rule this iK>int for the decision of the 
present case. The offender, in such case, would not be 
tried for a common nuisance, Hut for an offence of minor 
magnitude", which in its nature might or might not be 
included in the larger offence, which minor offence would 
not in such case be presumed to amount to a common 
nuisance. I may, however, remark, that the case is fairly 
put by Judge Torrance in the case of Exjtarie PUtou; et al) 
where he holds that the power of the Dominion Parlia- 
ment to enact a general law of nuisance as incident to its 
right to legislate as to its public wrongs, is not incompati- 
ble with a right in the Provincial Ijegislatnre to authorise 
a municipal corporation to pass a by-law against nui- 
>8ances hurtful to public health, as incidental to municipal 
institutions. Much in accordance with this is the case of 
Poulin V. Ihe Corporation of Quebec,^ and the case of Tlie 
Corporation of Three Rivers v. Suite,'* although in these cases 
it was not contended that what was prohibited could have 
amounted to an offence > cognisable by the criminal la\v- 
Again, the city authorities, before and up to the time of 
Confederation, were possessed ol* authority to suppress 
nuisances, which will be seen by reference to Statutes of 
L. C, 86 Geo. III., cap, 9, sec. 68 ; also, by the charter 
granted to the City of Montreal in 1^51, 14 and 16 Vic. 
cap. 128, sec. 68, land in 1860 by 23 Vic. cap. "72, sec. 10. So 
that what were Municipal Institutions and Municipal 
powers at the time of Confederation passed to the Provin- 
ces without diminution by the British North America Act 
of 186 /x On this ground, as well as from their being in 
the nature of Police regulations, incident to Municipal 
Gh>V9rnment, I think that the exercise of such powers as 
thht complained of in the case now under consideration 

(>) 6 Legal News, p. 20% ^ , '- , 

(»)7Q.L.R.,p.387, . . 

(») 6 Legal Neva, p. 33a „. <^ 




•-^ivrsi^' 



^•m-i.' 




'•■*. 



RT or QD BEN'S B 



4ir 



is within thf^ coUpetency of the Legislature of Quebec, ii«. 
consequently "vthai there is no grpund for the present PiUowttai. 
appeal Vji^ch miist be dismimied and the judgment of the ufi^^L 
Superior Uojirt«oufirmed. /. 

k" ' « ^. ' i' ' ■■ ''-'v\ 



n 



./■ 



' This qa«e raises a constitutional question with all the 
embarrassments attending such questions, fhis time it is 
as to the conflict of the local pow6r to legislate as to 
" Municipal Institutions in the Province,'' ^nd^e Federal 
power tolegislate as to " the criminal law." ^^-7 
By 87 ^c, c. 61, (Q.) 1874, " An Act to revise and eonsoli- 
^date the Charter of the City qf Montreal, and t>hoJle)reral 
Acts amending the same," powet was given to the Cofi^cil 
• of the said city to make by-laws "for the good rule, 
" peace, welfare, improvement, cleanliness, health, internal 
I' economy and local government of the said city, and for 
II the preYeution and suppression of all nuisances and all 
I' acts and proceedings in the said city, obstructive of, or 
" opposed, or disadvantageous to the gopd rule, peace, wel- 
" fare, improvement, cleanliness, health, internal economy 
/or local government of the said city." Then follows ji 
list of the powers so given in detail.' In 1879 another act 
. was passjd, 42-43 Vic:, c. 68, for the si^me purposes as the 
^ Act of 1874 and the acts amejoding it, as also for all by- 
laws,pa^e in virtue of the~8aiiaeT providin^for the abate- 
ment of /nuisances affecting public health or 'safety in the 
said citj^, and the punishment of persons committing, or 
causing, or permitting the same to be committed or to exist. 
It was enacted that " any chimney (not being the chimney 
" of a private dwelling house,) sending forth smoke in such 
" quantity as to be a nuisance— shall be deemed to be 
" nuisances (a nuisance) hurlful to public heaUk and safety, and , 
" liable to be dealt with summarily in the manner pro- 
" Tided by said By-law ; and any person who shall commUany 
" sMcft nuisance, or cause or permit the same to Ve com- 
" mitted, or shall allow the same to exist, or shall fle^lodr 
II or refuse to remove or abate the same, shall be liable? 
" nnder the said Bylaw, to the penalties imposed by sec^ 



-J7 



i 



T 





. 




• 




!| 


f 






, .Jf 






1 


tf 


1 


" f ■ 


"i 


^;|i 



^ "''I 



w 


ri 


1 






TffW^ 



I 



412 



k 



MONTBEAL LAW KEPORm 



HMD. ' 
MllowntKl. 

Monlrval, 




" tif>n 124 of the said Act, iui hnroinafter aniond«d, the said] 
" Oouudl to havo full powor, in the casti of a ooiitiouanco 
" of the otrunco, to impofto thn naid ix^naltioH for eai^h and 
" every day that the oifence shall continue." 

In virtue of the powers conferred by these Statutes th«' 
City Council passed a By-law,^hich is in these words: — 

" Sec. 8. Any chimney (not being the chimney of a 
" private dwelling house) sending forth smoke in such 
" quantity as to be a nuisance, is and shall be deemed to 
" be a nuisance hurtful to sublic health and safety, and 
" any person who shall commit such nuisance, or permit 
" the sapib to be committed^ or shall allow the same to 
/ exist, or shall neglect pr refuse to remove or abate the 
" same, shall, for each offence, be liable to the penalty 
'•* provided in section fi 9f this By-law." ; 

. -fThe appellants were, then prose(;uted on the complaint 
of^the City of Montreal, " For that on the fifth day of 
." December, instant, at the said city, the chimney Of a ccr' 
"Itain manuftictory, for the manufacture of cut n^ils, and 
" then occupied by you and situate ^n St. Patrick Street, 
" in the said city, did send forth smoke in such a quantity 
" °a8 to be a nuisance, the said nuisance being then an^ 
" there hurtful to public 'health and safety, and for that 

you did then and there neglect to abate the said nui- 
"sance : contrary to the By-law of the Council of the said 
" city in such casct^^made and provided ;" and the appel- 
lants were summoned "to give your reasons why you 
" should not be (condemned to pay the fine or to the im* 
" prisonmeni imposed for the said offence and the coi^ts of 
':' this suit : otherwise judgment will be given against 
" you by default in this action." On this complaint there 
was a conviction. 

A writ of Prohibition was sued out to restrain the 
Recorder's Court from proceeding in this matter : but on 
hearing on the merits the Prohibition was dissolved, and 
the parties convicted appealed. • 

At the argnment it was contended that the Act and the 
By-law were illegal, the legislature of Quebec not having 
authority to deal with a common nnisanci as it was part 



' / 




COURT OF QUERN'S BEHCH. 



413 



Pillow at kU 
of 



% 



of th.^ crimiiml Ihw. Thore is lio difTwroncft of opinion 

poMiblo on tho Huhjurt that irrlyninal law is not within th« 

powew of the lo<!al pai^Iiatnenta ; ^ut what ih intorfewncfl i^ii^i, 

with tho local law b«H;<>mf8 a moro delicat« qdeation. 

The apptUlantH ««>om«<l4to think that th.^ uae of ] wordN 

commonly vrot>l<»yo<l «» the criminal law det.^rmirlwl tho 

queHtion. ^ I ani inolined to think thindemandH a diHtino- 

tion. If byjhtt^w'ordH it is attoraptod to gi ve juri«d/(;tion to 

punish thAti which i» already part of the criminal/law the - 

Act.would bo ultra vires. \\ul if tho torjns of tho /rimiua; 

law woro used to charat^totizo an ofTen.o within fho jurii- 

diction of tho local legislature it >vould bo otherwise. For 

instance, if a local laW do.;larod it to bo "a common nui- 

sanco " not to clear tho snow away from the fooi-path, the 

law would not by that ho ultra vires. The powir depends 

on the thing ^^n*;, not in the words used to /ot it forth. 

.Of course, the Amo thing might.be made\ a/ crime by a 

Dominion law, and then, probably the locAy law would 

cease to bo operative. But^hat is not the question here. 

The law says thbt a particular thing shall be a nuisance, 

and that it shall be deemed to bo hurtful to iublic health 

and safety ; that is not giving jurisdiction to finish a thing 

which the law- now dec-lares to bo a .comibou nuisance. 

That the By-law follows the terms of the liw se^ms to be 

admitted, and no point is made tlftt it does not. I am 

therefore of opinion that the Recorder had jurisdiction, 

and that the Prohibition should be set/ aside. It is of 

course possible that the evidence might d/si^se a criminal 

offen(ye, and in such case, it would be the 4ttty dTTEb' 

Recorder to commit the orfeuder for trial. 1 mjiy, however, 

add that I do not think we are contradicting the prin-' 

ciples laid down in Reginn ^ LAwtence^'). It eeems to me 

that the difficulty in reconciling conflicting powers does 

not arise when dealing with criminal law, which, by its 

nature, is absolute. The line df demarcation of the 

cnmmal law appears to me to suffer no interference. The 

matter muat be either orimimil orji yi l, and the local 

(') 43 U.a Q.R 164, and 1 Cartwright, 742. ° 



\ 



r^> 



J 



:K 



'I. 



/ 



r 



<' 




414 



MONTRKAI. LAW IIFPORTI!. 



IIM. 

HIlow •! Hi. 

A 

VMy »t 

MiHilrMl. 



/ , ■ 




1 





If^fjfislatnm can no moro <1oaI ^ith «n indictable miadu- 
mt'anor than with a lehmy. I am to confirin, 

DdUioN, C. J.:-* ,^ 

Thcro an* two oaNeit ruporti>d in thw Ontario R«|)ortH 
in whicli the (|UHNti(»n wan what in a criminal law, an<l 
vvhctlu^r an Act of tliM ixxat [^cginlaturo intcricnHi with 
the criminal law. One im the cane of Reg. \. ttmrdman, (') 
where tlie li<igiNlature of Ontitriu having panned an Act to 
regnlatu tavern and nhop lictuiseH, 82 Vic. c 82, under the 
power giveii to them hy the ll.N.A. Act, 18H7, nee 92, Nos. 

0, Irt, it wan held, that they had power under No. 16, to 
enact that any perHon who, having violated any of the pro- 
vitiionH of the Act, nhould «!ompromi(iu the otTencQ) and any 
pemon who should Im) a party tosnch <rompromiiM), should, 
on convii^tion, be imprisoned in the comnion gaol for thruo 
months ; and that such ena(;tment was not opposed to sec. 

01, No. 1*l\ by which the <Timinal law is assigned exclu- 
sively to the Dominion Parliament. 

In another case of Beg. v. Lawrence,ii^ an enactment, 
laaking it an offence to induce a witness to absent himself 
was held ultra vires, for the act was a criminal offence, at 
common law, and within the exclusive jurisdiction of tho 
Dominion Parliament. The distiniction J)etwe«i these 
loses is easily perceived. ^' 

The Parliament of Canada has exclusive aathority to 
legislate with reference to criminal majtters. Now what 
is a nuisance? It is certainly on the border Jine of civil 
and criminal. It can hardly be considered a criminal 
ofleuce. It i|i often a mode of trying a civil right. It is 
an offence Whic]| the loi'al legislature has a iright to deal 
with when it re||ttes to property within its jurisdiction. 
The local legislattire has power to impose fln^s and to 
imprison, when the matter falls within its jurisdictiou. 
Before the Confederation Act, the City of Montreal pos- 
sessed this power, and it was not intended to deprive 
mtmicipalities of it. ^, V ^ „ 



(') 80 U.C. Q.B. 563. 



(') 48 U,C Q.B. 164. 



%- 



'' ^Br» 






^ 





COURT or (SVekn-s BEWai. 41^ 

' Rawy, J. :— 

I agrf« with th« ob«..rv«tioini of th« fJhiof Jwntli-e. and 
I am of opinion that th« oflimco whi.h in in <|u«>Ntion 
h«re i« a matt»»r whivh falU within thn domain of th« 
municipal authoritiea. Whon th« om<n<M. complaint-d of 
JH not imr ne criminal, the munf i|)al authoritii-H havt. tho 
rlffht to makt> Huch n'>|r,ilation8 an ar»' n.HOdnary for nigtriV 
tion and prohibition. It \h dilH.nlt to ilraw a lino b.'tw«iJri 
what tho muni(;ipal authority may prohibit and what Jay 
b«* ionHidorod a nniaanro. Tho more loaving an obatLk 
ill tho 8tr««t w, in aiortain wnae, a imiaanott. If wo clme 
to the ron.lusion that tho mnni«ripal authorltloa havJno 
juriadi.^tion in a matter of thia kind, what uae would ttere 
hv> lor municipal inatiiutions ? / 

Judgment < onfirmM. 
. MitatMBter, Hutchimon ^^ W^eiV for the appellanta. ' 

R. Roy, Q.C., for tide City of Montreal. 

./. L. Archambault, for the Attorney General V. Q 
(J.K.) • ' ■ 




Bptember 25, 1886. 
Car^m DoBiON, O.J., Mowk, Ramsay, CROflfl, Baby, JJ. 
^^ ^OHAELOTTE FISHER. 

{J^entianl in Court below), 
■■' ^:^. ■ ^. Appjilijlnt;" 

WILLIAM S. EVANS, 

, (Ptainttf in Court beloto), 

Servitude-Derttnatim made by Proprtetor-Ji^eM of Servi. 
tude-C.a Hb,b^ 

Hilt. :-1 As regarda •ervitude., the destination miuie by the pronriotor 
m equivalent to a Utle, only when it la i„ writing. Ld theTtu^ 
the extent and the situation of th^aervitnde are -iScifled C G wT 

2. Tl.e ^ and extent of a «,rvitude .«, determined ^iTniing to the tWe 

which eonsUtates it; so. wher* E. acquiwd'lbar housJ "witJ k! 

^rvitnde of hidden drains nndem^^h^e y«d.." Z^it ll^ 

that a drain had been constructed to conduct the iwage otZ^ 



-"S^ 



•#» 



IMA, 

Pillow •lal. 

jni» of 

MimtrMl, 






■A 



.f 



K- -A. 



ff 




^. 



188& 

Fiahor 

& 
Kvani. 






I, 
3!^ 



t^ 



il' 



m 



mo: 






«!,« 



■'-ili 



(AL LAW REFOMS. 



houfwii in question as well as of tlie a4joining'-oorAer house, to the 
street drain, it was held that the deed did not giTe any right^of serJI^i. 
tnde in the portion of th^ drain under the yard' of the adjoining cor- 
ner house, this not being mentioned in the deed, and not being 
included in the description given therein. » H< 

The appeal was from ajudgmentof the Superior Court, 
Montreal, Jette, J., March 81, 1884, as. follows :— 

"La Cour, apres avoir entendu la plaidoirie cont/adii)- 
toire des avocats deft |fartie8, d'abord suir la motion du 
demaudeur, eu daCe di^ It novembre 1883, demandant ^a 
permission di^ rfeouvrir son enquSte pour produire les 
pieces de la procedure par lui adoptee pour met! re en 
cause Dame Elizabeth Niron, femme Spence, propri6taire 
du terrain sur Jeqnel la servitude rSclamee doit 6tre exer- 
cee, avoir agcorde la d^e demande, puis entendu les 
parties sur le ibnd du proces mu entre elles, pris connais- 
sance de leurs ecritures pour rinstraction de la cause, 
examine leurs pieces et productions respectives, dument 
cousid6re }a preuve et sur tout d6liber6": 

" Attendu que le demandeur reclame de l^jdefenderesse' 
une somme de $468, a titre de dommages, k raison des 
faits qu'il allegue ; ^ v' 

1. Que le 25 Janvier 1868, la defenderesse lui vendit 
quatre immeubles hhiis de. maisons, situ^es sur la rue 
Bleury de cette ville et portant les Nos.. 2, 3, 4 et 5 
d'une rangee de maisons ,appe;l£e "Terrace Tecumseth," 
born^e d'un cdt6 par la maison No. 1 et de I'autre par la 
maison No. 6 de la dite rangee de maisons^ avec la seirvi- 
tude des egouts soaterrains ^tablis en ajridre des dites 
maisons, lesquels, k I'gpoque de la dite vente cpmmuni- 
quaient arec I'^gput public de la rue des Jur6s en pasd&nt 
sous les b&tisses et par le terrain du proprit^taire du dit 
No. l.de la dite rangSe de maisons; ' ^ - >-" 

2. Que jusqu'au mois de jtiia 1881 le demandeur jouit 
paisiblement, pour T^gout de s^rdits fonds, de la servi- 
tude susdite, mais qn'4 cette date le nomm6 Spence, pro- 
pri6taire du terrain No. l,de la dite "'Terrace Tecumseth," 
par leqnel passait le canal 6gonttant les immenbles du 
demandeur, ferma et boncha tout k coup ce canal, niant et 



■.;v:, :' -/■ ^'Tt' 



/ 



«^ll 



COURT OF QUEENB BENCH. 



^ 



tefu84|t^ au demandeur tout droit de s'eh servir pour 

6gouttW ses dits terrains vomme par le pass^). . 

_^ 8. Que ledemandeur protesta imm6diatemeut le dit 

Speuc«, et Ik defendere88e,.reqii6wit du premier I'exercice 

de la servitude susdite et app61an^ le second k larre cesser 

ce trouble apport6 k sa jouissancei mais qu'ils refusdrent 

de-se conformer a sa demande et qu'en consfequence, le 

•4emaftdeufr fut forc6 de feire construite d'autres canaux 

|pour Igoutter ses dits terrains, ce qui lui a occasionne une 

^dj^pense de #263.60; 

1^4: Eofin, qu'en raison de la dite interruption des 
moyens d'6gout des dits terrains, le demandeur a perdu 
dans la location de ses dites maisons, une somme de #200, 
lesquelles sommes le demandeur reclame de la d6fende- 
resse comme susdit ; : 

" Attendu que la d^fenderesse a contests cette demande 
par diverses exceptions, aliquant en substance > 

1. Que le demandeur a pos86d6 pendant plus de dix 
ans, sans trouble, le» immeubles k lui vendus park 
dglenderesse; et qu'en consequence, sa demande a 6t6 
prescrite ; 

2. Que la dfifenderess* avait acquis ces immeubles du 
8h6nf, avec la servitude deb figouts souterrains^ ce que le 
demandeur savait, et qu'elle ne lui a vendu que les droits 
qu elle avait amsi acquis du sherif ; et que 2l le sh6rif, ni 
elle ne sont tenus a aucune garantie, a raison des dfefauts 
caches rfisultant de ces 6gouts ; > 

3. Que les canaux mentionn6s par le demandeur exist- 
aient lors de la vente et que celui^^i en a pris possession 
eten joui depuis ; mais que la dSfenderesse n'a jamais 
declare qu'il y eut une servitude sur le terrain Spence 
pour ces 6gout8, en faveur du fonds du demandeur ; 

4. Enfin, que la servitude existe, resultant de la desti- 
na ion du pere de famille qui a construit ces maisons et 
telle qu eUe se trouve constat6e par 6crit au d^sir" de la 
101 ; mats que c'est une servitude d'iidivision ou de com- 
munaut6 donnant un droit 6gal a ch^ue proprietaire dans 
le dit ^out ; et que Spence a refus6 au demandeur I'exer- 

Yoi,LQ.a , ^ 2i ^^^ 



;.;...■■;■ -I -. 

mn. 

Fifher 






.ill 



|l i 



if 



f 



1889. 
F!«her 
Bvug 






.U' 



K*- 



ifef'. 



^^^. 



1 1 



i * 



TSrw- 



i- 1 






Mr* 
•I i 



418 montreaJC-law reports. 

% ' ■ 1 . ■ ■ 

* ■ ' 

cice de son droit, c'eat co^tte lui seal qu'il aarait dn M 
pourvoir et noil contre la 46fendere88e ; I v 

"Gonsid^rant que la stipulation contenue dims I'acte de 
vente du 26 Janvier 1868, niarqu6 par le demandeur doit 
8'interpr6ter par I'^tat des lieux, au moment deVla vente 
et auparavant, et que T^tat de jouifisance des d^ts immeu- 
bjes, lors de la dite vente demontre que la d^enderesse a 
vendu au demandeur avec la servitude qu'il reclame ; 

" Consid^rant que I'acte par lequel Spence a privfe le 
demandeur de I'exercice de cette servitude constitue une 
Eviction partielle pour laquelle il y a lieu a garantie ; 

" Oonsid^rant qu'aux termes de Tarticle 2286, § 2 du 
Code Civil, la prescription con tre tels recours en garantie 
ne commence h courif que du jour de I'eviction, et que 
par suite, la ' demande dans I'espece, est port^e en temps 
utile; ^ 

"Consid^rant que la mention d I'acte de vente de la 
d^fenderesse au demandeur, qu'ellc avait acqtiis les 
immenbles du sh^rif, n« saurait limiter sa responsabilit^ 
envers son acqu6reur et que I'acte ne contient rien h cet 
efiet; ' ';. ^ [ ^- 'f--,.;- , 

"Considerant que I'acte par lequel Spence a inter- 
rompu et arrdte I'exercice de la sen-^itude d'egouts r6cla- 
m4e par le demandeur, constitue un trouble de droit con- 
tre lequel le demandeur est bieu^fond^ a demander 4 la 
defenderesse de le garantir et a d^faut de Tindemniser, et 
que la dite defenderesse ne saurait renvoyer le demandeur 
k se pourvoir contre Spence, a moins d'etablir que la pi^ 
tention de celui-ci est mal fond^Cf ce qu'elle n'a pas fait ; 

" Considerant en consequence, que les exceptions de la 
dite defenderesse ne sauraient faire reponsser la demande ; 

"Considerant enfin que la preuve etablit que les tra* 
vauxrequis pour etablir ui\e communication des ^onts 
des dite^ maisohs du demandeur avec I'egout public de la 
rue Bleury out coute la somme de <!$263, que le deman* 
dear est ^^.r suite bien]^fonde a reclamer ; mais qu'il n'a 
ete fiut anennQ preuve de la part d«s aliegues ; 
."Benvoie le^^ exceptions et defenses de la defenderesse 




:- f &. 



u'il aarait da se 



i 

OOtRRT OF QUEENS BENCH. 41J 

et en consfiquence laWndamne k payer au demandenr la 

dite somme de #268 Aurant. avec inter6t, etc." 
/. i. JkforW», for Appellant. 
M. Hutchifuon, for Respondent. 

Cross, j :_ . 

About the yftir 1844 4 terrace of houses was built 
facing 31eury Street, partlyW one S. H. Anderson, who 
commenced the terrace. It Was afterwards continued to 
Mors St^et by Alexander FUer.who had become pro- 
pnetor o^the ground, induing the houses built by 
Anderson^ , Fisl^rdji and theVoperty seems to havl 
been divide^ ^ a jgfc is children V whom the appellant 
was one. Sl^mmBhg possessed of the corner house 
adjMumg Jut(>r8'^treet8old it to a kr. Brooks, who after- 
wards sold\,t to Mrs. Spence withLt any mention of 
t6e sam^ b^ng subject to a servitudV She afterwards 
acquired at Sheriff's sale t^e four adjoining houses on 
the ascendin^rade above that previously sold to Mrs 
Spence. The WifF's deed declared these houses to be 
conveyed with\the servitude of hidden drains underneath 

LV f; ]^''^ ^''^^' ^y ^^^ °*' d^*« *!»« 25th January. 
1868 sold these four h<mses to the respondent Evans 
wi^ the servitude of hidden drains underneath the 

f iVT^fi' *^** "' *^' "^"^^^«* aud Lspecifications 
forthe building of the houses a commonV^a^n was prl 

yided fo^tjie sewage ^{ the whole ten:ace. passing- 
)? Ti^J"^' """"^ descending for atf outlet to the 
^reet fdrther down than the lowe^ .Jiouse. sold to 
Mrs Spence. This ^rain received he sewage of all 
««e Wes and continued to be used for that purpose . 

^^^t^.tu7' '' ^^^'^^^^^ '^P^^'«^ ' whereupon 
Evans, on the 15th June, 1881, served a protest upon her : 

r«he>Tj!f M i,-^"^;^^ • "'^"^ ^*^*' *^^"««' *h«' Miss 
*i8her had sold him the four houses with warranty of a 

t^^^l" . f ^""^^ r^ ^'''^ through Mrs. Sj^nce's- 
property, and claiming dnitiflgOH in d efau l t of uaiddiaiu 



.^ i 



188& 

Piih«r 



r 



?!/ 




\ 







fiV 







420 



&10NTREAL LAW JlEFORm 



\- 



ing 6pehed for' his |jise. He caused, a separate discharge 

ain'to be* cpnstructed for ihe tise of his houses, and 
brought the pjesent*8uit on the 2tth October, 1881, for his 
outlay and loss of rept.. > * \; ' / 

, -Miss Fisher by her plea set^p the pr^'tensiQus. that she 
did not warrant any servitude, but in. good faith «old by 
the' same description by which she '^ had acquired at 
S,heriff [^ sale, but that there really was ,ja, c^nion drain 
built for the coihmon advantage of all the, houses, amount' 
ing to a deslinatiofi de pire defaniUle, Mrs. Speiice had no 
right to close it, and Evah's could^have his recourse agMnst; 
her ; hev had^ besides, enjoyed its use uninterruptedly 
fc>rinore than ten years^and his recourse, if heyieyer. had 
any, was barred by prescription. < / ' ' 

There was no dfoubt ^bout the facts of the copstruetidlQ 

of the drain intended for the use and used by the whol^ 

terrace, and Evans' nieicessary outlay being proved; the ^ 

Superii^r Court gave him judgment for the cost of making 

'a new %ain. . Mies Fisher has applied from thid jli^ 

-ment. ' ' ■ ^'^^V» ' ?"■ ■■ ' : ' ■.-. ",.'7 "\:- ■. ''■'}-/.'- 

Two principdl questions come up for examination. 
First; -/shoiild Evans' recourse have been directed against ' 
Mrs. Spence for closing the drain? If it was a servi- 
tude, she purchased fre(^of incus&brances' without any 
charge of servitude,^ and, therefore, as ^ a general rule,' 
should not i)e held liable to snbm|t to any. The 'code 
'Art. 549 has adopted the maxim of 'no servitude witl^ont 
title, derived from v the 'Coutume de Paris, and even "the 
^destination tie p^e de^vunlle p^ the same way requires a 
writing, so that it woi^^>e difficult to establish, as against ' 
her, that there was a serVitu^e of this drain through her 
j^roperty. Viewed j« a piece of common property neces- : 
sary fdr the ule of Wll the houses, and in which each 
house }iad a kind of joint owi^ership, it is more plausible, 
and:*in this sense would fall within t}ie rtile oi destiiui- 
lion dep^e defamUle if our \aw j^as not express as to. the 
necessity for a^'writing in st^h case. We find in the 
arfksde Lamoignon, Tit. 20 of Wvitudes,' Art. 1, No. 2 :^ 
'* Si de deux maisons (bt heritages vpisihs ^ppartenant 




COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. 



431 



" A utoe m6me persotirie, I'lin est ali6n6 k quelque tltre et 
I ^ .. ?*^ qn^lqne cause ique ce soit ou^ar un acte fait« eptre 
I f[ des cohentiers communs^n bfens et associfis, les deiix mai- 

'1'??^^***^"**^®" ^«™^nt entreled-raMnsdepersonnes 
^ diflferentes, la destinatipn <le Tancien proprifetaire vaut 
*|^tit^, et demeureront les servitudes au iji^tae 6tat qu'elletf- 
":6.t'aieiit lorsque 1^8 choses ont 6t| sfepar^s sans autre titre 
" ou contrat, s'il n'en a 6t6 autrement couvenu par la^i^ 
" position ou' partage."" , ' 

Thief would exactly meet the case, but unfortunately 
It rather shews whit ^he law oftght to be than what it ■ 
Was m Lamoignon'fiitime or at the presetnt time. 

As to. either title or destination being derwabls from 
the contract to build, ttnd specifications, !ft is difficult 
to say that this could >e so, when Mil Spenoe hiid hter - 
house conveyed to her free of charges, and the servitude *' 
was. of m utility to her, as t|ie possessor of the lowest ' 
house,, and- then. &s A real charge it should haVe been 
' regigtered, -althougl^ the position of ^uch a right was'^ 
anomalous,, inasmuch ^ by. the statutej 28 Vl'c: (Xp. 69, 
sec. It, it was provided that po adjudication of npy real- 
property by the Sheriff or in any case of fqrded licUatfdfi, 
should remove or disohirgfl any^ervitude to which-theprp. ' 
perty was therejijrfore subject ; an e^rllfrdintoy provisiotf i 
with regard to servUudes qccultes, which liaj8,be^n remedied ' 
by a recent .Stiatute ot Quebec, 44 ■&v46- Vic. ch. X6. . This : 
exemption did not, hpweir^^, extend to regiditi^tion. ^t* 
Tl^e natural fl^fvitude of tlie descents o*" surface water 
would hv^ly^ warrant adraii thlrough ^neighbor's pro- 
pertyfp^sewag^purposes. ■ . . . 
J^owever, the right existed from the condition tff " 
fteT^properties,, or par (destination, Evans, had his . recourse -^ 
agamst Mrs, Spence. If it did not oxist and wfes: wai^ - ' 
rontedto him by hi? deed then he has his rec<p8e agkinst •' 
Miss Rsher. Was it warranted ? This' bAigs m ta 
t^e- second principal question, that is, whether aiy ser- ' 
vitude whatever was indicated as part of the rights con^ 
veyed4>y Miss Fisher's deed to Evan8,'of date the 26th 
Jjwoary, 1868 ? 



UB6. 

Fiabar 

A 
'BrM*. „ 



.% 



» 



jf-' * 



■# 




: yt 



.\ ' -'- 



i» « ,* 



T:.h 




4, 



law. 



^. 



- V- 









MONTREAL LAW BEK)RTB. - ^ 

- , ■'■: '■•■ . -^ . ■ ■■':--'-.-'V^ ■;;;^-->'^;. 

If there was no servitude declared thete could b« no 
warranty of it. Now the language of the deed was -" with 
" servitude of hidduu drains, underneath the yards." What 
syards? Manifestly the yards of the four houses previously 
conveyed, and no otl^ers ; nor by any reasonable construe' 
l^on of language could it extend to the yard of Mrs. 
^pence's house, which had not been mentioned, and was 
not included -in the description givt^. Suppose the lau- 
'guage had extended it to the yard of Mrs. 3pence'siiouse, 
would the description have been sufficient to indicate a 
servitude such as the respondent has claimed to exist ? I 
should say not. Code Civil, Art. 545, requires the use and 
extent of such servitudes to be determined according to the 
title which constitutes them. 551. As regards servitudes, 
the destination made by the proprietor is equivalent to^ 
•title, but only when it is in writing, and the nature, the 
extent and situation of the servitude are specified. 

These are not new law. Art. 215 of the Coutume dt 
Paris reads as follows : " Quand un pere de famille met h^rs 
" ses mains partie de sa maison, il doit specialement de- 
" clarer quelles servitudes il retient sur rh6ritage qu'il ipet 
'^ hors ses mains, ou quelles il constitnc sur Je eien. Les 
" faut nomm^ment et ispecialement declarer tant pour Ten- 
" droit, grandeur, hauteur, mesure, qu'espece d^ servitude. 
" A^ttement toutes constitutions g6n6rales de servitudes 
" sans les declarer comme dessus ne valent." 

Desgodets par Q^oupil givesyym^rous examples of tb^ 
necessity of specification, amon'g which, I select one, to be 
ibund at p. 344, No. 4 : " Si le propri6taire d'une maison 
" acquiert une autre maison joignant la sienne, et, qu'il y 
* ait des servitudes soitdevant ou apres Tacquisition, s'il 
* vend enisuite I'une des dites maisons et ne d^lare pas 8p6- 
" cialement quelles servitudes souffrira la dite maison ven- 
" due, elle sera declaree libre et fra»che de toutes servi- 
"^des, d'auta^t que les servitudes out 6t6 confuses et 
"^ti^intes par la possession d'un mdme propriStaire de cea 
" deux maisons. Ainsi jug6 par arrSt donii^ en la grancle 
^ chambre le 26 mai, 1601, dans Tesp^ce de deux maisons 
jies et dispos6es par un propri6taire, et sur luiMeptiis 



i< '. 





,1 


\ 




^- 


^ ^ 






J' 










I 


'A 


> 






-,,,J 




V- --^^M. WC:,« '^ 


*>«^j 


^ 


" 




i^^^ 


^^m 


^H 


fe' 


^M 







\ 



,A 



ptIRT 0» QUCEITS BENCH. 



,'•■■•« 



428 



" vendues sfiparfiment k denx difffereiites jpersonnes : en Borte 
" que les fletritudes a'fiteignent quand lea hferitages ser- 
'^ rants et dominants viennent dans le domaine de la mftme 
" personne, et qu'elles ne sont pas 6tablios par aprds pour 
'\pa8ser sSparSment en des mains etrangers." 

It would seem obvious that no such indication of ser- 
vitude was stated in the deed from ^iss'^ Fisher to Evans 
as to bind her to a warranty as contended for hy the 
respondent. * 

The judgment^copdeihningher to damages in favor of 
Evans must be reversed and his action dismissed. 

It is unnecessary to, pronounce on the question of pre- 
scription. " t ■ 

.*" ■.■■■'■■ 

DoBiON, 0, jr. : — jfc ' * 

I do not wi^ to express any opinion Nlpon^he question 
whether there is a servitudernatural or otherwisej upqn 
Mrs. Spences property. Btit it may be observed that 
the action here is by. Evans-against his vendor, fee says 
in substance, "You sold me a servitude upon another 
person's property." The defendant deniies this,; and on 
reference to ||ie dee^ it Appears that there, is no mention 
of a drain except .tinder the yards of the four houses 
8old^ If there Was a servitude upon Mrs. Spence's'prq- 
perty, the plaintiff would not have hie recourse against 
Miss Fisher until after he had put Mrs. Spence en demeure 
by an action, which has not been done,'! therefore 
.concur in reversing the judgment. " '' 'i..- 

The judgment of the Courtis in the following terms •— 

"The Court, etc. ' . 

" Considering that in the deed of sale referred to in the 
respondent's declaration; piade by the appellant to the 
respondent, executed before James Smith,^otiW7, on the 
26th Ja&uary, 1868, ijj^ is no i'udicati^ or sufficient 
._iescTiption bf any servitude puipoi^ting i<fte thenvftxlst- 
ing |n favor of the property thereby conveyed, and 
ext^nding.to any neighbouriiig property, m<ire especially 
to that of Elizabeth Nixon, Mn. J. G. Spenc^, mentioned 
in respondent's declaration, nor any legal bvidence to 



18M. 
Flihar 
Brana. 



■i' i 



1* 




18M. 

Flfh«r 
k 

■vMM. 



4M 



SAL LAW BEroKIl 



show that a Hervitude of hidden drains, or any other de- 
scription of servitrndeV did then actually exist in favor of 
the property thereby Conveyed, et^tending to or charged 
upon the said property ^feaid Mrs. Spence, nor that the 
said deed warranted the existence of any such servitude ; 
"Considering that the respon|dent has failed to prove 
the allegations of his declaration, more especially the 
warranty which he pretends the appellant contracted in 
his favor by the aforesaid deed; considering {hat no such 
warranty wals undertake^ orNhas existed on the part of the 
appellant; ' - ' ; - ?•■ -.-. - ,,;„■: ■ •■: . ._,, 

"And considering that in the judgment of the Superior 
"Court, rendered on the Sls't of March, 1884, there is error, , 
the said Court of Our Lady the Queen, now here, doth 
reverse, annul, and set aside the said judgment, and pro- 
ceeding to render the judgment which the said Superioj 
Court ought to have rendered, doth dismiss the action of 
the said respondent, with costs as well of this Court as of 
the said Superior Court." 

Judgment reversed. 

/. L. Morris, attorney for the Appellant. ■ 

Macmaster, Hutchinson 8f Weir, attorneys for Respondent. 

..■ Cr. K.) , ■■ .-' V ■■ ::, ,,;.--v. 



'i I 



,1 ' (I 



11 










'.'MC^-:.. 






; \ CX)UBT OP QUEEN'S riBNCB, ^ ' , 4^5 • 

■ y'-'S ■ . . *''■■-'. :^ ' ' 1% 26, 1886. , , ;.:;•■■« 

Ckmm DoRioN, O.J., Monk, Tehsieb, Crosb, Baby, JJ. ' 

HON: h'starnes vBctvAL. .;^ ; 

{Peiiti^iterfar ratification of title under award of aUbitraiart), ' 

APPliLLANT; 

..;.■■ .'"■ ■ ■ ■ _ AND ..'■."•,- / ■ . 

JOHN H. R. MOIflON, ,. v 

{Proprietor exproj/riattd, and opposant below), 
" Respondent. 






i 



[and a okoss api^eal.) 



:>J 



Expropriation— Quebec Consolidatta RaUtody ilrt,>^1880 — 
Biparian proprietor — River fronta^ — Valuation — ^' 

Hkuji:— 1. Tliat a proprietor, whom land extendR to the beach of the River 
., St Lawrence, within tlie limits of the Harbour of Montreal, has n^ 
such a difltinot and jndependent right ofeasement or servitude in 
the river f^tmtage as is susceptible of beih'g value^ separately and 
apart from the compensation awarded for the property itself whcto 
the latter is expropriated for public purposea The inconvenience of 
being excluded from easy access to the river, is merely an element 
to be consider^ by the arbitrators wlien estimating the indemnity 
' to be. awarded for the property expropriated. ,^ / 

2. That even if the riparian proprietpr expropriated powessed such .ease- 
ment or servitude, the Itanctions of the arbitrators would not extend 
to the valuation of such right, unless' it were included in the notice 
■ or deniand of ezinipiHriatioii. 

The case arose upon an award nii^er the Qm^c Con- 
solidated Railway Act of 1880. The former Q. U7b. & O. 
Railway^was being extended along the ri'V;er front ftaai 
the eastern limits of the City of Montreal to the Quebec 
Gate Barracks Station. Mr. Molson was proprietor of the 
extensive property known as Molson's refinery and distil- 
lery, with a frontage of t40 feet on the river, and during' 
44 years had carried on extensive dperations, in the course 
of w^ich he had availed himself of the long river frontage. 
I^ 1881 the plans for the extension pf the rai^ay were 
deposited^ The plans showed that the railway was laid 



4f 



#, 




%. 



.V-, 




HUrnM 

.1 
Molaon. 





^> 



p4 ' 



m 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



•long th© whole river front of the Moliion property, taking 
(litfrofroip a strip of 26 feet, and further, that the railway 
wiw to tie. built to a height of ei^tee'n feot, thus intorpo- 
Hiug ttiv irnpassable bamor b«Hwoen reHpondent'ii land on 
the one hand and the river on the other. The then Miniit«r 
of Railways offered ♦t,478.60 for the land taken, and the 
damage to the proj^erty by taking the strip, Sec. The offer 
was deihned; Meesr*. HutchiMon, Siniord, and Alfred 
Browii wern lh«M> appointed arbitratorH, and hnally an 
award of 118,48? 70 wan made ; but this included a sum 
of i|»,5(]ID " to .be paid to the said J. H. B. Molson for loan 
_fif river frqntage, if the said J. H. R. Molson is entitled to 



a river frontage." Mr. Molson was prepared to accept the 
award if paid id full ati)nce, but his petition to have the 
money paid over wari'resipted by the Minister of Railways, 
on thti grouncl of the hypothetiiral form of the award and 
the illegality of the allowance for river frontage. An 
action was then instituted against the Minister of Rail- 
ways, but the action was dismiHsed on the ground that as 
Minister of the Crown the defendant was not subject to 
the jurisdiction of the Court. ; ' ^ «ia 

Subsequently the Minister of Railways applied for rati- 
fication of title to the lands taken, and it was on J;hi8 
application that the present contestation arose. The. re- 

- spondent asked that the award be set aside, or that all. 
the items of the award be paid to him. In- answer to this, 
the Minister of Railways denied the respondent's preten- 
'sion as to river frontage, alleging that the. St. Lawrence 
being a navigable river the respondent had not upon its 
banks any right different from those of the public, in 
general, or any right which could give ri^e to indemnity. 
The case came before Mr. Justice Papin^au> who decided 
there was not suflftoient cause to annul the award, but he 
held that the whole amount, including the item of |8,600 

" for river frontage, shoultl be paid ovftr to the respondent. 
It was from this judgment that the present appeal was 

taken. . j ,'- . .' "-^^^, v-^-. ■-::, ;:-.:;^::^; '':>..--:"-:-^^: : 

^ il. ll(^, Q.C,f<i me appellant. .^ z^ 

R. A. Banuay, for the respondent MolsonA : 



^./: 






« 



OOUBT UF (^USEM'S iUCIfCV. 



Orohh, J. 

To entry out m «ttflH«Jon of the Qttflb«fl, Montrwal, 
Ottawa and Oo^^idoiital Uailway, from th« north-oimt <uty 
limit to Barrack Stroei in the City of Montreal, authorimMl 
by the Quebec Act 44 & 46 Vic. Gap. 2, th<« Quebec; 
Government, ovniers of that road, about the month of 
October, 1881, to^)^^ proctn^dings to t*x prop r late the different 
propwiies <Ju thrf line of thin extennion, um ithown by the 
•plan depoHited for the puriMwe^ according to ^o re<juire- 
ments of the law. ,^ '^ 

Mr. Molson had several projierties on thiB line, extending 
from St. Mary Street in front, to the wharves or Harbour 
OomniisHionerH' [msHessionH in rear, and in due^ course 
had notice of a demand in expropriation of portions of 
said properties in rear, extending to the ordinary high 
water mark of the River St. I.«wrence, in other words, 
to the Harbour in rear, with offer of com{)enNation 
for the proptirty and damages as required under and in 
conformity with the Quebec Consolidated Uailway Act of 
1880, 48 & 44 Vic. Cap. 48. ' 

The offer was refused and an arbitration proceeded with. 
Mr. Molson placed before the arbitrators a detailed state- 
ment of his claim, claHsifying values and damages under 
various distinct heads and subdivisions by numbers and 
letters, and concluded with the following : " The damage 
" to the property as u whole by the deprivation of its 
" frontage on the river, and "dn the wharves of tl«i Harbour ^ 
" of Montreal, to which river and wharves the proprietor 
" has by right access, and which he has ever used, ^n " 
" which' is an easement of great and increasing valu«^n 
" the uses to which the property can- be put." 

The Minister of Railways objected to this lalglension as 
beiffg contrary to law, maintaining that ^ihe banks of the 
St. Lawrence belonged to the Stat^ Mr. Molson, as own- 
ing the neighboring land, possessed no right to or over 
these banks, not more than any other citizen. 
: Mr. Molson, thereupon, objected to proceed with the w* 
bitration, unless an award should be made upon thi« 
his third h^ad of claim, and threatened to stop the pro- 



I 



HtornM 
MuUun. 




>P»« 












) 



^y 



MUiriEKAL LAW H£K)&m 



coeding* by iB^unotion. Th« •rbitratora, under lh« cironni- 
Ntaii<'«*ii d«M-id«d to Uk«« «vid«n«'« on this third hi'ad of 
clttiiii, and thoir' proi'^HMliiiifa wfto « <mtiiiu«Ml ui> to «ii 
•ward whiit^h wan »rriv<*<l at on th« '2Hth April, 1882. 

Oertain arranK«uiontH with r«'gar<l to th<* alti^ration ol" 
roolH w«re a<liuiit»«l Iwtween the pptrtii^H in th« vxmnti of 
th« prixw'dingH, and l»yconiM»nt tnad« partot th«i award. 

,Thin award <I«MT««d to Mr. MolwJn an (U)nip4Miiiation tor 
his laud, huildingR and dilFerent hi'ada of dainag« save for 
thfl river frontage, the BUin of |1>,087.70, and on the Uttt-r 
h«'a<l addod :— ' ' x* \ ' , / 

" Fifthly and laatly, and f farther »nd additional nnm 
''of ♦ft,600 to-lwi paid to the «»id John H. U. MoUon for 
" I088 of river frontage, if the mid J. U. H, Mohon i$ pitied 
" to a Htm frontage, #8,/)Q0." ; t / * ft fe 

Mr. Molson, who had from the firiit, d<inied the juriidic- 
tion of the arbitrators and the regularity of their proceed- 
ings, lontinued to maintain that the award was irregular 
and insuifii ient, but was willing to a<5«ept it if paid at 
once the whole amount, including the $«,600 for river 
frontage ; in other words, a favorable award a« aooordod 
with his idea* of compensation would be accepted, but 
otherwise wcfuld be disputed. The Minister of Railways 
contended that as regarded the river frontage, Mr. Molson 
should establish his right to it, before the Gbverament 
could sanction its payment. 

The Minister of Railways thereupon deposited the 
entire amount of the award, including the disputed item 
in the People's Bank. Thereupon, on the 1st of May, 1882,, 
Mr. Molson petitioned the Court to have the entire 
amount of the awatd paid him out of the monies deposited 
in the People's Bank, alleging its insufficiency, but offer- 
ing to accept it, if paid immediately. For reasons not 
very fully explained this petition was unsuccessful. Upon 
its withdrawal, Mr. Molson instituted a suit against the 
Ministet of Railways and the Arbitrators, to have the 
award set aside. It was dismissed on an exception dkiim- 
ioire. Mr. Molson complains of being embarrassed and 
delayed by the obstacles which the Minitter of Railways 



ih 



mA 



»3l 




n^* 



ooosrorQunvf^lMtt 



it* 



m 




of the property 

iHtr. 1H8S, »M» db. 

ry'H oiWce a copy 

of iH0,8«ty.78, b«iug 



^ l«t«rpoi«x!. hut it might \m riitort«a that <h« prootMdingii 
on hia part w«ri« adopt.wl with grwat pntmptnitiiN and fol- 
U)w«<i up with p«rnov«ranw and aaniduity, and if not 
w«ll foun<led, ho v^ould havo citlculatua tte riak of th« 
ronH4*(|u«nc«i. ■ ■ •Ti- & 

In the mimntimo tho Minbt«r of ItniiwAyn b^, on tho 
24th AujfUHt, IHH2, on tho HtronKth of tho dopoait h« hod 
raudo in tho IVopltj'n nank.and und.r the uuthorily given 
by Buh-aiH!. 28 of am-. 1> of the (jutfh»juj\)nBolidut«d Railway 
Act of 1880, applied foAancl otfpfPl^Writ of I»o«»WHHiott. 
ijtt virtue of whifih lie hfrumi 
Expropriated, and on the I 
l>o«it»'d for ratiliiution in the 
of tho ttwaVd together with thi 

the full amount of the award, with ample added for iute^ 
e8t, requiring tho uanal notices to be iMuod for ratification, 
with the reserve and under protetttation that the aum 
depoaited to »5ovoij the damage for river frontage waa 
do[>o8ited on tho exproBa condition that it waa not to be 
paid to the party expropriated, until he should have estab- 
lished bolbre said Court that ho had a right to that part 
of the indemnity, that is, until he had established that Ite 
had a right to the river frontage, which the Minister of 
Rftilwaya thereby declared that he most formally con- 
tested. 

The notices for ratification, and the petition ^y |fc|JJin 
iflter of Railways for that purpose contained the IKjIf r» 
.serve and declaration on his part. jf 

To this application Mr. Molson filed an elaborate oppo- 
sition, in which he re-asserted his claim to compensation 
for the river frontage, claiming it as an easement or servi- 
tude possesstHi by him in which he a8serte<l a distinct 
right as of property, still alleging reaaons^against the val- 
idity of the award, and concluding that it might be set 
aside, but in the event of that not being granted him, that 
tlie whole amount of tl^e award should be ordered to be 
paid him, that is the whole amount deposited to cover the 
award, including tli^ estimated indemnity for the river 
frontage, 



HUriMM 
MaiiM. 



Jh 




t/ '■: 





5 



im. 

Starnea 
MoUon. 



'if' 



'48Q< 






\ 



MONTREAL LAW BEFORTB. 



By his reply, the Minister of Railways denies Mr. Mol- 
son's pretensions as to the river frontage, contending that 
the rivei^ being navigable and the wharves thereon were 
fresB to the public, Mr Molson included, but that he had 
tip special property .or rights therein, and was not entitled 
to indemnity in the premises. 

Evidence was taken at considerable length on the issues 
so jttined, but the features of the case are not thereby 
much affected. The question was from the first made one 
of law and so remains. 



By the judgment of the Superior Court, rendered on 
the 12th September, 1883, the contestation of the Minister 
of Railways was distaissed, land the conclusions of Mr, 
Molson adopted, awarding him all the amounts contained 
in the Report of the arbitrators, including the .jcompensa- 
tion for river frontage, sind adding interest up to the date 
of the judgmienl to be computed from the 13th of March 
previously, also the costs' of -contestation. 

From this judgment the Minister of Railways has ap- 
pealed, reasserting his pretensions as already explained, 

^ and/SthsMolson has appealed, claiming that he should be 
awarded additional interest on account of theembarras- 
menKand'^Maj^nterposed by the Government to the 
recovery of hi^ compensation, but declaring his acquies- 

- ence in the remainder of the award. 

We do not find much ground to support thlP pretension 
with regard to delay and Embarrassment. |t was Mr. Mol- 
son who. objected to the proceedings in* expropriation, 
denied the jurrediction of the Quebec Government in the 
matter, persistently disputed the proceedings and award of 
the arbitrators, imposed conditions and restraints upon 

, their proceedings in the matter of the river wntage. He 
contended for every possible objection he could raise to 
the award, but was wiping, in case these ifailed, to take 
the extreme indemnity. Mr. Molson has from tl^e first 
striven .to secure all that ' could be obtained, and his pre- 
tensions have been urged with perseyerAce and assiduity. 
If delays have occurred, part at least are fairly attiributable 
to his own proceedings. ' The pretension intended to be 

■■■ " '■■'■I' 11 — I. - I II I.I I 11 M i n i ii m iii. Ill ■■■■ii — .. I. II I I I Ml 



%: 



^er> 



481 



raised has from the first been' fairly enough put forward 
by the Minister of Railways, that is, whether Mr. Molson 
had any special riffjit, flroperty or servitude in the river 
frontage, entitling'him to coinp^nsilion under the Railway 
expropriation of his propeHy! -'%!. 

On the merits of thitf question, thi^advantageous pos^ 
tion of Mr. Molso^'s property, as q<)»trguous to the rivef 
may be conceded as undoubted, 'itst^a^y and convenient 
access to wharves and the river may greatly enhance its 
value, as the proximity.of a property to a market, Railway ' 
Station or, other important centre of business may do, and 
the further a property may be removed from such centre, 
there may be a proportionate diminution in value, but 
8uch inci-ease or diminution of value, and the advantages 
and disadvantages of being shut out or facilitated by such 
an alteration being made when a Railway or public work 
is constructed, are, when they exist, so much to be added 
to or deducted from tfie value and damages to be awarded 
by the arbitrators in appreciating the indemnity to be 
given. If they see cause for this allowance, it is an element 
to enhance or diminish their award, according to their 
discretion; but |t is quite a different thing when a de- 
mand is specifidally made for a separate, distinct and 
independent rigl: t, which appears to be the case in this in- 
stance. In the first place, the fact of its being a distinct 
right as a servitude would, perhaps, exclude it fron» the 
demand for expropriation. If its expropriation had not 
been demanded, it could not be taken into accbunt by the 
arbitrators. But admit that it was to be taken into account ■ 
then still it must be a property to'which the claimant 
has a right, of which he is in fact the proprietor. Ve are 
of opinion that Mr. Molson had not 4he right to river 
frontage as claimed by him. He was bounded by the 
harbour, and like any other citizen hadjto pass through 
the jurisdiction of his neighbour, the Harbour Commis- 
sioners, before he could reach the river; that it might' 
still be a question whether the chemin de halage, which the ' 
public had certainly at one time a right to use along the 
nver bank should ;iot be taken into acconnt. in p«f im.^i«g 



t 



188S. 

StarnM 

A 
MolMn. 



V 



#. 



ill 



" 1':! 



\ 



f^.. 



I'^^l 



i/~ 



f^ 


' ! "1 ' 


■1 1 


\ i 




'\ 1 


i 


' \"i' 




' \ " ' 




r 




' T 


• 


' ■ \ • 



♦!.v 




1^" 



'.H 



■ir 



UM. 

Stamea 
Molion* 



t I 



** 



m 



MONTREAL LAW REPORTS. 



Mr. Molson's indemnity, yet if, as he contendB, it has dis- 
appeared, from the fact of its being abandoned by the 
Harbour Commissioners, and Which we would, be rather 
disposed to concede, yet he still had, for his neighboui^ the 
harbour and not the river; and the inconvenienoes, if 
any, beyond the line of Mr. Molson's property, would spe- 
cially qpnceni^^tjbe Harbour Commissioners. For incon- 
veniences to his piroperty.if any w«re found by the 
^ arbitrt^tdrs, it was their business to award him compen- 
sation in the value of his property or in the damage 
occasioned to it by its partial expropriation. In this case 
we find that he has claimed a distinct right outside of, 
and over and beyond the line of his own property. That 
we consider he is not entitled to, and it must be denied 

Wm. ^"^ vV ■ -■;,/;. . 

It seems to me that' the law 0n the subject is clearly 
and succinctly stated, as wellin Mr. Molson's own fectum 
as in the judgment appealed fifom, and it seems curious 
that distinctly opposite inferences shpujld be drawn from 
ite same statement of the law.. By^^^ j^^gment the 
learned Judge states ihat the riparian proprietor has no 
greater right of property in nor. servitude over the" river 
bank than other individuals ; that navigable rivers and 
their beaches are free for public uses : but, adds the judg- 
ment, "^%i. Molson had availed himself of his contiguity 
to the river, and his property was more valuable than 
th^t of a non-riparian proprietor, and it was established 
by the first part bf the aWard that the arbitrators had 
valued%e property as if it were not riparian and had no 
advantageofcontiguitytothe river, and the |3,600 lat- 
terly allowed, was for being deprived of such access.'* 
Now, the award does not say so, butVstates a fact of quite 
a different nature and bearing; it says, "for loss 6f river 
frontage, if Mr. Molson is entitled to a river frontage, and 
the tenor of the ckim in Mr. Molson's opposition is for a 
right over and beyetad and outside of his <5ontiguous pro- 
perty, in other words, an easemient or seryjtude on the 
xharbour itself. He might as well claim to control the 
Tises to which the Harbour Cjanmissionera might ^^\ 






I 






!■•'■ 



m 



OOITRF OF QUEEira BENCH, 

' different portions of the harbour, fof instance, pretend that 
his access Was interfered with by the erection by them of 
a storehouse or oflace on the wharf to. accommodate the 
shipping traffic. In fact this idea of access is one which * 
affects citizens generally, and respecting which Jie can 
haVl9 no special complaint." ^ 

The "present case is especially fa^^orable, because it is the 
Government itself, (although the local Government), in 
80 far as access to the Wharves is conceri£9d, modifying 
public property for public UseiSythat is, should ifebe cpn- 
sidered that the access is in/any respect changed or 
affected. Even had the arbitrltors omitted to allow Mr. 
poison for inconvenience t^lKs property for^an allow- 
aniee they ought to have m^, the tmror could not be 
repabedby awarding him com&M^tion^iqt a river front- 
age or anything outside of his own BippertyXJf he has 
chanced tpinislead the arbitrators fy putting forward a 
ground of clainj to which he is not entitled, the fault is 
his own, and he cannot profit by'it. ^1^ 

The judgement on' the appeal of the Minister of Rail- 
ways is therefore to be reversed, his cohfestation main- 
tained and the item of $3,500 with the interest thereon 
disallowed.^ With regard to the extra interest on the 
other items allowed up to the day of judgment, as it is a 
matter of di^icretibn, we do not int^fere"^itKl|| but th^ « 
extra interest on the crote appeal cannot be allowed, as in 
our judgment Mr. Molson i& himsel^the party in the * 
wrong. ■■ ■ ■ ■ :■,. ■ " :' / > ' , •" -^ #;' 

It is doubtftirwhether in any such case ^e could allow ' 
additional interest, as there is no conclusion for it,a^d we^ 
have to give the judgment the Court below shoulia* have 
given ; if we found they were wrong, we #oui4 change *i.' 
Ltheir judgment, but thiSy have given th^e utmost interest 
they could give, and we cannot add anything to it on 
account of the delay that has occurred since : thj t would " 
be assuming original jurisdiction. Mr. Molson's a 



188&. 

8taraM 

k 
Mobon. 



■^- 






*•"■ 



utuQi, luureiore, oe .oisr 


nissea. 






1 


■ 1 


' 




,V • \fr^ j_^r. 




" *-\b" 






■*■ 


1 


' 


/■■--::'---■' 'I -''■"': '-' 


* * 

» 










f 


^ 

# 


* 


1 . * 










V 


* 


< 




• 






.*■'*■ . - 


' 




■ ■ i'M 




m 







188S. 
StarnM 
MoUon. 




WW 



^> 



■i' 



A. 



. The following is the jadgment of the Ooitrt,:- 

"The Court, etc.. 1... ^^ 

" -Oonsidering that by law and tke statatef under whic& 
the 'arbitrators acted, in estiujflting the compensation to 
be awarded to the said JTohn H. E. Molson, th^ir fanc- 
tions extended .jio farther than to toward comi^ensationfoi' 
the vftlue of the property expropriated, and i^e damage 
occasioned by its being taken for the^purposes of theBful< 
way, but did not extend to the valuation or awarding 
compensation for a Iright claimed as ad easement ^or seVvi- 
,tude upon the public wharves qr bgpks of the navigable 
river' St. Lawrence^ if even the party expropriated was 
possessed of such right ; 

" Oonsidering that it appears by the proceedings' had 
in this matter, that tl^e said John H. B. Molson, as well 
before the arbitrators ^a^ by his opposition tO the ratifica- 
tidn df award, as petitioned for by the Commissioner of | 
'Bailwtays claimed such t easement or servitude, as giving 
him a right of access to the. river ; 

" Considering that by law the said John, H. R. Molson | 
h|is no right or title to any such easement or servitude ; 

'" Considering that the said arbitrator? have ad^ed to 
their award a declaration in the terms following iv ' And a | 
' further and additional sum o£ |3,500 to be paid to the j 
' said John H. R. Molson for loss of river fron^ge, if the] 
* said X<Aih H. R. Molson is entitled to a rive^f' frontage ;'• 

" ^ni^idering that the said John H.R. Molson isnot 
in law 0r in feet entitled to any such riv^r frontage, and] 
that the said arbitrators exceeded their jiirisdidtion in a4- 
ding said declaration td their award ; 

" Considering that said declaratior/and the part ^f the j 
award which cbntains iae same ar^hjrpoth^tical, irregu- 
lar and illegal ; . • 

"Considering that the said/i^ohn H.R. Molson hu\ 
^ himself shown, by the titles ofhis prelecessors, that thed 
only ftcqu^ed title in the/d^jjectibii of the river ^j 
lAwrence lktJ*^''beach resefve a^d no further, which i9-\ 
serve at the time included not 8Wlytl|^ river Ibank uptoj 
th fii ordinary hC^wate^ mark. iSi^t aleift^ iwrther widthj 



1^1%' > 






K V 







'^tv. 



» 



\,h 





OOXflter OP QVEKirs BtNCH. 



X 485 



7^t^ *^\^^T^. ^' ^'^'^^ * Mogvr for the us! 
f ? P^blicr ^hiclMt 18 not shown aver' beeamo Vested 
m the said John H. R. Molson.or his predecessors, or tliat 
jlowance was made for the, same when hi^i bnildings 
vre^recterf-or otherwise in any manner whatsoever ; 

Considering that in the judgment rendered in this 
matte, by the Superior Court at Montreal, on the42th day 
t^T^ ^ *^^" " erroy^as well in ike .Ly^^Z 

I tn Pi^Ti W '"'"^ the'^by awarded to the said' 
John H. E. Mol8ofi,.as in sotae of the reasons given for^ 

Uidjudgment. and that, more particblarly, the,^ is error 
in jhes«d Judgment m allowing the said sum of $8,600 

h^lT- "fu "^"^ *^ *^" "^^ J«^^ H- »• Molson. and 
|md.idmg the s^me in ^he amount ordej^d to be j,aid to 

iBtrt qojiside^ng that the siid j^gment has been to ' 
certain extent^quiesced in. although not as rega dl 
the said sum oTte,50()Uid%tere8t thereon- 

"The Court ^f OUT tady the Queen nowhere, doth can- 

ceUnnul. and setaside the- ^aid judgment, in ^o fS ^it 

Irjnflicts With the Allowing order anl judgment to wit 

the saii Oourt of oui^Lady the Q^een nLlt^'th ad- 

Ijudge and order that'the contestation. of^e Commissioner 

rfEailways^oh behalf ofHef Majesty the,Queen.of^L^^^^ 

poeition of the said John H. E. Molson. b^ and the same 

lis hereby^ mal^ntained, andthe said. sum' of «8 50o\o ™T 

l^d John H^ ^. Molson, m case he was ^titled to a'river 
&ontage,^i8 heireby di^llowed ^nd s#uck out of IS. 
Judgment, together with any. and all iM}fp«f „n a 

R f* ""^/f «" »>™.dep«iled in tie toil „f J 

H'W" Oxpropnyted for the «id extensiou of E.iIwT 
H % damage., cao,ed fe.him.bT said expropriaS 
l»d that the 8«d Jihna E. lK,i»^,d„ pitytESj 






V I 



SUniM 

« 
Molion. 



/f/ 



V, 



¥■ 



<J[ 



.y- 



■"4 .-^ 

"'-.it;. 



.#. 



» mi 8g LQagtj)£Eai lwa yoo n tl ie present appeal.; 






\, "^ 



> 



■' .,,.!': .^.^<; 





" Atjd adjplging upon the appeal 
ohu P B. l>^I^on, cl«iiini% aii^dd,it^ 
,n%ek ; ' 1 ^ • '^ liSf ' %L "' • a»- - % 

4ent as rei^rd?!^ saidM^kional, 6lwm Cpr inter^t, th^ 
said appeal] g^^ said IM^-'^oh^^^he^^'' 

entolji^B8aidS«p^nm»rt.'V:M» ^^' "^1 
reversedf, and^croi^ Ai^pw. disinissed] 
■ Appellant Starne(i| 
I for Bespondeiit .^oImoi. 






(#tch 24r 1885. 



Axim I^J^ON, O.J„ MONK,.RAM8A,Y;dft08S, Babt, JJ. 

* ''**'1«^' GjBORG^E BURY ^ 

, ' ' ' ' i ^ ' ■ . ' ;/ 1 L Appellant ; 

"" >*,, ^ ' AND \fil ' \4 

. .JACOB L. sAmUBIJ^ 



( • 



i 



Besfonpent. 



Pro(^ure\-Executum—Insildvencp of\ 

\ Hi- ' ^' ' f 

Held z—ThafiwKereli Judgment creditor ha3^ 
ofa portion o^ the* defendant's effects, i 
ited m the writ of executic 
llegJ^iOB<that tlie defendant 
have been/ filed b] 
for an a/io»Wit o^«cunon, for i 
the remainder of m^ derondant's et 



Wi»^s^ miAnt app o al o c 



^he eeipste and ( 
to cover his 

t/beeqaently, uponj 
t, and that o^oeiti 
litort, obtain an on 
of seising and 



Sderw l by t MJ 




he seyuit^ And ( 
to cover his 
ibaeqaently, uponj 
, and that o#06iti 
ton, obtain an on 
se of s^inng and se 








i 



•"S^] 



\ 



POURT OP QUEEN'S riENCH. 



v» 



y \ 



487 

S?I'ii-"'' ^^^^'''^^^ (LOBANOKB, J.), Sept. 12, 1888, in 
If fejlawing terms :^ , 

"lAdour, etc... ,. ; < 

l^'Owisidfirant que le dJtaandenr a obtenu le 8>^m. 
i^e 1882, jugement par dkaut contre les dfifen^rs fai- 
mt-affaires ensemble et en 80ci6t6 sous le nom de Sil- 
berstem et Oie, ppur la s<»mme de |600 courant et les dfi- 
pens ;,\' ' f^ «p«» wc 

"a>n8id6rantqueledenandeura fait saisir en ex6ctf. 

tiondecGjugeinentles hiens meubles, marchandises et 
^ effete de commerce de la dite 8oci6t6 Silberstein et Oie, 

dout 1 opposant faisait paAie comme susdit ; mais qu'une 
I partie senlement des effets saisis ont 6t6 vendus, le pro- 

ll! til ^"^'" *y*^* «*^ «»ffi«a°t pour satisfairp attmon- 
tant port§ au dit bref ; j 

l„„l'^°"'^^'*x* "^""^ ^*"'' oppositions afin de conserver 
nt 6t6 pr^mtes sur les deniers ainsi pr61eves. I'une par 

tT^-^T^ '' ^'''''''' P" ^^ compagnie dite / The 

Cp^veau Silk Company.' tons denx creancers de la dite 

1^.6 6,SUberstem & Cie. ; que par leurs dites oppositions, 

^diteopposanteont all6gu6 que la dite soci^Ifi Silber- 

nf/* u\ JT^''''**^" "* °"* demanded fitre admis 
la d^stnbution de la dite somme ainsi pr61ev6. au marc 

|dlfe^1«^^ "^^^^ ^ autoes cr6anciers des 

hrl^T^i^^'i^''^ ^' demand^ur a subs6quemment d la 
S ?Z„h' i ' oppositions afin de conserver, savoir. 
if. df T '™'"'' '*^*''^^ ^' ^'^^ ^^ honorables 
Tn^rf •' '^"T''"""'^^ ^'-,^*^^« ^°»«^«' ^^ alias 

Z^^ThI ' #^fe*^t Py^t^ndus, pour les rai- 
|»P8 ci-dessu9 ,itfdtttionn6es r , ^^ y % 

L u ^"!!*^* "^""^ l'0BP<>f»nt, nndid^fendeurememSi* 
^h dite «,fe Silbersteil & CiK^eBtmos^i^t^ 
fwmde ce dernier bref pour les raisons suivantes : ^v "^^ 
jf Parce que I'ordre du juge qui en avait permid^'^mi^ 
MA, ^^^ ^* irr6gulier en autal^ qu^;nul^1»v,'8pr6. 



1880. 

Bury 
BMnualiL 



K 



f4t 



/*■ i 



. ■■■ A 






"1. 



onndaur 



r 



1-- 




{'■n 



''"s^w^r^r^n^ 






>^, 



s^"^' 



2># ' 



\ 


fT 


i 


1 * 
•4 




- -,»; 


1 


r- 


1 


f 


fj 




f 








US8. 
Bury 



>*">» 



! r 






^:- 


il' 


ITp 



\ 



. '1 

/ 






|: 



..s 



48S 



MO)(TBEAL LAW REPORm 



outre le dit ordre avait 6tk obtena sous de fausses repr^ 
sentatioQS. » * 

* 2o/ Pare© que le premieT bref en vertu duquel lea biena 
et effets des ddfendeurs out 6t6 ve^dus, ayant 6t6 satii' 
fait, le demaudeur 6tait sans droit i demauder l)^mana- 
tion de Valias bref ; ' . 

; So. P^rce que la 80ci^t6 Silberstein Sc Cie. 6tait solvable 
k r^poque, de r6manation du premier bref d'ex6cutipn et 
lore de la production des oppositions aiin de conserver ; 
^ 4o. Que rall6gatiV}a d'iuHolvabilit6, contenne dans les 
dites oppositions etait fausse et aVait 6i<^ faite frauduleuse* 
ment et par entente entre le demandeur, les dits opposants 
et le d^fendeur Silberstein, associd de ropposant, dans le 
bi(t de faire cesser le commerce de la dite soci6t6 et d'en 
^liminer I'opposant au profit du dit Silbersteih*, " . 

" Cdnf id6rant que le demandeur n'6tait pas temu de don- 
ner aux d^fendeurs avis pr6alable de la demande qu'il a 
faite le 29 dScembre dernier «pour I'^manation de ro/uu 
bref, et qu'il n'exisfie aucune prem^ que le dit ordre ait 
6t6 obtenu frauduleusement de la patt du demibideur.oi | 
sur de faiisses vepi^sentations ; mais qu'au cojitrait^ 
s'appuyant sur les allegations contenues dans leir dites q|»-'| 
positions, le demandeur qui se voyait a]^l^ k pptisiger^ 
au marc la liv»e et expose a 6tre retard^^flt^s le recouvre- j 
ment de sa cr^ance, 6tait iond^ k demander qtril lui fut 
per^nis de faire vendre les biens saisis en vertu 'du pre- 
mier. b;^ef, pour en faire distribuer le prii le pjus tot pos- 
sible entre , lui et^ les autres praanciers de la dite soci^ 
Silberstein & Cie ; , -'. 

"Oonsid^rant en onfre qu'il h'y a pas lieu &,rescilider 
le dit ordre du 29 d^cembre dernier, sut In contestation 
telle que li^e entre les parties, I'opposim^ n'ay{mt»point 
demand^ par son opposition la rescisi^n dtt dit ordre ; 

"Considferant qu'il est en preuve quela socifetfe Silber-J 
stein & Cie. 6tait insqlvable lors de laj^o^ii^on desj 
dites oppositions afin de conserver; qtie le • fait^est adiois 
par Tun des associds, savoir, le d^fendeur ^olphe 9ilb^^ 
stein, et que sur ce point-son t^mbignage 6^irr6ctisabu; 

" Que le 12 d^cembre, la dite'soci6td Silburstdin &^ Oie. j 



^ 



.*':^ i 



m. 










VJ 



>a8 lieu ^rescibder 
sat In contestation 



Ir^*IiTi""*^",'*' •«- »»»«»« ^^^t'-^ l'«- main, du nomm6 
MM. Daff pour le b6n6fice, comma udeaea crAanciera; 

Que cet acte de ceaaion aignfi par I'un dea^aocifea 
pour la 8oci6t6, eat valabfo et doit^fttre reconnu coSme tel 
•ur la prfiaente coateatatJQu, le dit acte n'ayant poipt 6U 
d6clar6^nul par aucune («>uir de' juatice et I'opposant ne 
demandant paa lui-m6me par son opposition, la nullit6jdu 
ditacte; " • ♦./..' 

, "Oonsidfirant qu« I'opposant n'a fait aucune preuve des 
all6gaUou8 de fraude que contient sa dite, opposition, ni 
de la participation du demaudeur dans le ctfmplot qui au- 
rait 6t6 tralYn6 entre le d6fendenr iSilbersteiri et les oppo- 
T vi" ^«^°°««'^«»-. Pow"^ feire cesser les op6ratiohride 
ia8oai6t6 SUberstein & Cie; «n mettant ses biens sous 
liquidation au moyen des dites oppositions afin de con- 
server; ' , ' 

" Cqnsidferant, que sous les circonstances et vu les ditej 
oppositions afin de coiiserver, lesquelles sont contest^S 
par le dfefendeur et sont encore 'pendantes ;' . *^ , / '■ 

"^u en outre que le montantdes dites opposltio^ est 
plus 61ev6 qije le monttfnt du jugement dui demwideur, il *' 
y <| pas lieu de declarer que la cr6ance dp. d©ttiandeiir a 
6t6 6teinte et pay6e par le pr6l6vement fait sttr le premier 
brefdeifioution en. cette cause; . / ' . 

^ "Qup ^pr^tention de I'oppdsant; sa^ir, que le deifan- 
dear est oblig6 d'ftttendre que le jugemeit soit rendu sur 
les dites opposft^0n8>fi^deconserver, av^td'6tre admis^ 



MS. , 
- Burr 
Hamaalf* 



dits d6fendeurs, 



proc6der k 1» veate des biens et effets des 
est inadmissible en idi| * ' * 

"Oonsidfirant qui l^cq^^ant n'a poiii prouve les allfi- 
guesdpson opposition, et qu'il n'y a,p,L lieu d'adjurer 
sor les moyens de fo^ine ou les irregularis et insuffisance 
delap^durequri I'opposant a signalfies ^ I'audience • 

" At^dw que cesjuoyens ^'ont pas §t6 invoqu6s sur la 
contestation telleji|p[i6e entre les parties ; 
i w^T' ''?HP*^^^® oppositi<m avec dfipens distraits 

*^. Aimw^.a, for the appell^^^^ 
. /. Bates/fot the respondent. ''^ " 

# 



./^ 



1^1, 











■i: 



; 



XT. 



MONTAKAI. J«4W JUU'OKII. 

appoara^fiiny in the remarkfl of the 






the commerdia) firm of 
lUat WM a partner, for 



The reHpondunt .was creditor 
" A Silberstein Si Co., of "Which 

^ the balance 6( i^dApMH^PlIp JgpmisHory note of the 
said firm. Tha^'ra^nJiKjjU/^ed the firm and obtained 
ludgmont by default, iocxecation of this judgment the 
goods of the firm were seized, and a portion o£them hav- 
ing produced |t542, the sale was stopped, and the money 
returned intocouftr ImmWiately two dppoHitions setting 
np the- insolvency of Silberslein & Co., were iiled, claim 
ing together #852.02. Seeing this, the respondent applied 
to a judge in chambers for an order to permit him to take 
ut an talias writ of execution, which was granted. Th^ 
"ij^pellant Bury, one p{ the partners of Bilbersteiu (8t CiT, 
. moved the eourt to set aside the order in chfH»ers. This 
' application was rejected and he appealed. He contends 
r%hat there is nothing to show that Silberstein & Co. are 
> inHliaJvent, or that the oppositions are well fotmded, and 
eonsequetUly that it may be that respondent's judgment 
^ ^.JrsittisfiecK ,^. ', „ '^ ■ *'^ , 

;J[t seems til^e^lhAt this ' anpeal sHanld' offer ilo.kind 
of dUBcnlt]r. Th^ familiar rale of our law,- that the 
'" , r'^iSib' ^^^?, debtor is tie gage of the creditoi^ 
coveiSfhe whole ground. The execution ' is firnitless to 
th0 credJlQr, and he therefore deolandftthe privilege pf 
^ ' havin jRfflFwhole^ Wk del]ttor^'s(|bod8' «pld and' the pro' 
.^ ce^^ brSUght before tiih cQiatt> The ^tor aretead^ he 
■^— is noHnsoj^yiut," but y|A^.presl»mptidnr<^fe the other 
WAy: Here-vve^Mbe a Qpmm^Tcial^ firm 'allowing judg- 
ement to'^^aby dqjHpt'Jil^ its o^n promissory 
i^ote'; Mhm exec^pBn MloWs and.i!th^ money is at once 
"absorbed f>y opj^itlons. V can understand a partner 
Vedminlll. forward, to $iay that," although appearuices'are 
^ qi^linst l&im,„iie is solvent, t^at he does not owo thelnoney 
oTiimedi>y the oppositions, and to asi^ that the sale on the 
,' iUim writ miiy be suspended. But that is not Bnry'a posi- 



•-/- 



imarka of the 



COURT OF QUEBira titNOS. 






'I 



tion ; he says, there is no text of law to anthoriie the judge 
to give the order he did. and of Which he had no notice. 
It will hardly be (jontonded thi|t the absonceof notice 
Hlteni the question, for he (Bury)/wa« heard in the Supe- 
rioTi^art,«nd he did not show ithat he had suffered by 
an^rprise. As to the main point, I know no text of the 
lawVhich forbids such a proc^ure, and iL is neoeasary 
to Bto|» summarily the repetitiod of a very old fashioned 
fraud, which the appellant has j^aken no pains to conceal. 
I ami to confirm. 

"Bkwtyi^, siso dissented. 



u«. 



,1" 

HamMla, 



|O)0RI0N, C. J. :— 

iL'intilnfi ayant obtenu un juiement centre Silberstein 
& Oie., pour nne somme de|60ol a fait saisiret vendre les 
meubles des dfifendeurs jusqu'A Concurrence du montant 
«4« 8tt cr6ance. Deux oppositions afin de conserver ont 
faites par des^rfianciers de Silberstein & Cie., qui de- 
i.T-:!?"*®**' % ^^^ colloquy au marc la livre, all6guant 
riiAyyabililfe de leurs dfebiteurs. Ces oppositions furent 
'1^^*®* ^^ mdme temps que les deniers pr61ev68 sur la 
vftite de^mts k Iti poursuite de Tintimfi^. 

Qedern^sans attendre la distribution des deniers, a 
pr68ent6 4 unjnge en chambre une requfete demandant 
qu'il lui fat permis de faire 6maner un alias bref d'ex6cu- 
tion, pourj^ire eaisir et vendre ceux des meubles des d6. 
fendeuTs diiin'aVaient pas encore 6t6 vendus. II alj6guait 
dans cettef requ6te, la ]^remiere vente, lep oppositions con 
servatoire/s et que les dfifendeurs 6taient insolvables. | 
lui fui ppnaiB de faire 6mettrfr4an nouveau bref d'ex6cu- 
tion, et Bury, I'appelant, et Tun'^des dfifendeurs en cette 
cause, a iMtMnne opposition demandant la nuUitfi de la 
nouvelle sai^^e. Son opposition a 6t6 renvoyfie, et il ap- 
pelle da juge&ent de la cour de premifcre instance. 

En vertu de Tart. 696 du Code de Procedure Civile, il 
ne pent «tre prooM6 k la vento des effets saisis que jua- 
qu'A concurrence de cequi ^st n^cessaire poiirle paiement 
de la cr6i^aipe.da..c)r6ancier saisissuif. 



,tf 




^»i^- 



,'\ 



w* 



'i 



•If 



•f*,'' . 






a^ 



■plf^ 




n 


p - 


. 


••# 


11^ 


r * 




' r ' 


t: 




liif 






'V' !j 


' " ?' 






' 








• 


) 


■ 




l«* 


1. 




i'^' 


. 




i« 


\ ('•]' 


• 







IMB. 

linry 

A 
Manittdi. 



• 



II.', 

[( I 

^ I 






1 

I t. 



';:ir 



I! 



<! 



H ' 






MOXTREAT. LAW WRPOWfR 



II I'aat roin»rqu«r que le wooiid href <l'ex6oQtion « 6t4 
6iniii Bur un« r«qu*to qui ii'» pM 6t6 communiqu*e aux 
d6f«nd«)ttn, et noui n« trouvoiw rien, Uaum lo Ood« d© 
Pro«'6diir« Civile, qui puiiwi autorisor uu jogu A faire 
6inuttro un Bccond bref d'ex6cution »vant ta dintribution 
des deniore pr6lev«« w^r un premier brcf. lontqne cos de- 
nier* IfutfiHwnt i>our «6qnitter la dotte. 

11 \%i vrai quMci il a 6tf> all6guft quo lea dfefendoum 
fitaieul iuHolvabloB, mais il n'y a encore eti aucune oontwi- 
tatiou doH oppositions oi-doaauii, ni aucunu preuvH A oet 
effect, «t il eat poHsibl*^ que wh oppositionH Hoient, aprda 
lout, rejet^ea t,omme ^tant piw fondfim et qtti ritttiittfi 
Boit pay/^ en ••ntier k m6me Ics doniers pr6lov6« par la pre- 
miere vento. Tout au pluH, Hi I'intim^) avait all6gu^ dea 
faitH qui, avant le.jugen\ont, auraient ju8tifi6 I'^manation 
d'une sai8ie-arr<*t, il aurait pu obtenir un ordre pour faire 
naisir-arrfiter les /effete jusqu'i\ la distribution des deniers 
d6j& pr6levfe«, cofnme cela se pratique en vertu de Tarticle 
651 0. P. 0., lorsquo dans les quinze jours du jugement 
le d6fendeur dissipe ses effets. M^^me dans ce caa, il n'est 
pas permis au cr6ancier de faire saisir et vendre, mais 
seuloment d« saisir les effets, et la vente ne pent avoir 
lieu que dans les quinze jours que la loi accorde au d6bi- 
teur.. V 

Le second bref 6tant '§man6 sans droit, I'opposition de 
I'appel ant doit fitre maintenue. ^ 

Monk, J. :— ■»: '^ 

' I concur in the judgment, and after the ohservatiotas 
which have fallen from the Chief Justice it is scarcely 
necessary for me to add anything to what has been said.' 
But tHere is a slight difference between my opinion and 
that of the Chief Justice. An execution isaued, and enough 
^as sold to provide for the payment of the debt, interest 
Ind costs. Immediately upon the return of this writ, two 
oppositions on the monies were filed, the defendant being 
alleged to be insolvent, and it was asked that the amount 
be distributed au marc la livre. Before any proof was ad- 
duced on the question of inaolvency, an application -ma 



*% 



m 



■tj 



CGQwr or qOKKira BRNon. 



^' 



■w *- 



It, Topposition de 



448 



inMl« to the judge ia ohatnb«ni to have an aHtuJl./a. for 
farther levy. Thi. order wm obtained »x parU, it Iwdng 
alJ«ged merely that the defendant waa inaolvent, and 
that B^ry would not be paid unleaa there waa a 
further lalo. Kiren auppocing it had bwni proved 
that there waa inaolvency it iH very doubtful whither 
Hn alioi writ could lopfally iiaue. But in this caae there 
waa n6 proof what^er of inaolvency, and until that 
proof iH made, I think the iaaue of an a/iVw writ ofyl/a. wa« 
inoperative. Upon tfiia ground, I think the order given 
Jj^hainbera waa illegal. If auch a pra<!ti«;e were M»nc._ 
.'■ tWM^r'ft ifrould involr* ft my aerious innovation in our 
iuriapmdenMii The aale would proceed, and all the de- 
fendantV property would be sold. Thou, auppoae the alle- 
gationa of the Opposition were utterly unfounded, what 
would be the defendant's poaition i His property would 
be gone, tor » cKebt of «ay #600, and perhaps then^ would 
have been levied- 1«,560 more than he owed. I cannot 
understand how the Judge in chambers couldvhave given 
such an order witfctoiut some proof that the allegation of 
insolvency \^aa well fouiid^. 1 have never heard of 
s^ch a proceeding bi^fb^. , 

Thejadgmenti«reg!8tdTCiiaafblIow8:-> * „ 
" Oonpid^rant qu'en vertu de rartioie 696 du C. P. 0. 
du R-C, il ne pent 6tre proc6d6 k la vente des meubles 
et effets mobiliers saisis en vertu d'uu bref d'ex6cution, 
que jusqu'd concurrence de ce qui eat n6cessaire pour le 
paiement de la cr6ance du cr6ancier saisissant, tel que 
portfie au bref d'ex6cution en capital, int6r6t et frais J 

" Et consid^rant qu'ai^rjrii le pr^I^vement sur un pre- 
mier bref d'ex6cution de dej||(Ji<a suffisantspouT payer la 
crfiance de I'intimfi, et le^y|)^ de ces deniers devant la 
cour, mais avant qu'ila ^rte^jfcasent distribufie, I'intimfi 
sans avis pr6alable aux dfifendeuxs, et sur la jeprfesenta- 
tipn que deux oppositions afin de conseryer all6guant 
rinsolyabilitS des d6fendenra avaient 6t6 produites et qu'il 
6tait expose h perdre sa cr6ance, aurait obtehn d'nn juge 
en chambre rantorisation de &ue 6mettre un aliM bref 



IMI. 

Hary 

Hamuala. 



■'■■ i 



atg|i>^iyB.'g B 



* 



1 




■, '.- 


f 


1 








'1 


,■■ ; 


1 


•?' 


w 
It 




1-. 


*1 






Mi 


i 


». 


1 



444 



u."- -W»-».^^]j^jWT5l"1SlSft** 



MONTBEAL t^W REFOBTO. 



'. hj 



Bury 

cfc 

Samaeli* 




Si 



\ 






-V 



' 1 1. 






■ *; 






'f' 






'^-t 


H' 








Bii^^ 





¥ 



^